HinesSight

The truth about Obama's butt ogling

I never really believed that President Obama would ogle a teenager's butt (though it was undeniably attractive) at a public function.

Now the truth comes out, thanks to a Daily Kos video. No surprise: once again, Fox News purposely spread a falsehood. See for yourself:

Obama, save us from BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

The debate over how to fix our country's broken health care system can get pretty darn abstract and complex. But last night my wife and I had a hands-on experience of what's wrong with private medical insurance.

And it made us ever so eager to escape from the clutches of Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, which is our increasingly costly insurance provider.

After Regence's 40% premium increase on our individual plan over the past two years, we decided to look for a way to get more health care bang for our bucks.

Laurel has a friend, Christy, who is an insurance agent. She said we should look into changing from Blue Selections Plus to Blue Selections Premier, and consider altering our deductible.

First, though, it was necessary to make a big pot of coffee, pray to the health insurance gods, and hope that a mixture of caffeine and supernatural guidance would enable us to decipher the differences between Plus and Premier.

Remember: we were exploring private sector options, not the Obama "socialized medicine" that right-wingers are claiming will ruin the world's best health care system.

Well, after a few hours of trying to navigate Regence's private sector maze, we were damn ready to embrace anything other than the insurance we have now -- if that turns out to be a public plan such as the one members of Congress have, great.

If someone wants to call it socialized medicine, go right ahead. It can't be worse than the horribly confusing and unfair health insurance system we have now.

I worked for ten years in health services research and planning. Laurel was a psychotherapist in private practice for about the same length of time. We know a lot about health insurance.

And we both were scratching our heads last night, trying to weigh the pros and cons of deductibles, copays, annual limits on coverage for certain services, annual coinsurance maximums, plus other arcane (yet important) factors that must confuse most other people even more than they did us.

I kept thinking...

"Come on! Why can't this country simply have an insurance plan that meets the needs of almost everybody? Like how the postal service operates. It does a fine job delivering our mail. And it's a government program. If I want extra service, I can head to Federal Express. But by and large the USPS provides a great product -- for everybody."

After phoning Christy and getting some advice on the best deductible for us, we decided that it made sense to switch to the Premier $2,500 deductible plan, from our current Plus $1,000 deductible.

OK. Optimistic me actually thought that maybe I could just call Regence, talk to someone, and have our contract easily changed from Plus to Premier.

Yeah, right.

As if anything is easy with health insurance these days. Which reminds me: the Regence web site, for some utterly understandable reason, doesn't include "plethora of inefficient private plans" among its reasons for rising health care costs.

A 2005 Science Daily story says:

Billing and insurance paperwork consume at least one out of every five dollars of private insurance health spending in California, according to a new study by health policy researchers.

I can believe it, given how much time we spent last night filling out an application for a Premier contract. Because even though we've been Regence customers for many years, I was told that switching to a different plan entailed applying for coverage just as someone new would have to.

I didn't think the online form would be fun to complete. However, I had no idea that it would be as time-consuming and frustrating as it was.

Whoever designed this monstrosity of a questionnaire probably never filled it out himself or herself. If he or she had, the ridiculousness of asking the same question over and over in different ways would have been obvious.

Yes, one of us had moderately high cholesterol at one point (me). I dutifully check that health problem as I move down a lengthy list of diagnoses, symptoms, and such we've experienced the past five years that Regence wants to know about.

Then the form demands more details. I explain that I was prescribed a low dose statin and my cholesterol is much lower now. Regence wants to know the name, address, and phone number of the doctor who wrote the prescription. I provide it.

Later, after Laurel and I have been working on completing the application for 90 minutes or so, page 967 (roughly speaking) of the form asks for a list of prescription drugs we're currently taking.

"We already told about those in the problem areas," Laurel said. No matter. The online application must be obeyed. We spend more time re-typing in the same info we'd already provided. Now I understand how staff in doctor's offices and hospital billing must feel:

Wanting to strangle the private health insurance bureaucrats who come between patients and their health care providers.

I can't understand how the conservative blowhards I hear on talk radio/TV manage to say, "Americans don't want the government interfering with their current health insurance coverage."

Yes we do!  Please, please, government! Step in and interfere! 

Just save me from ever having to fill out another private health insurance contract application like the one we worked on last night. It was insane, because the clear purpose behind most of the questions was to learn whether we -- gasp! -- might have some health problems.

Gosh, Regence, you got us.

You're right. Laurel and I want health insurance because we're not always healthy. I know that you and other health insurance providers would prefer that your customers never got any medical care, because then you'd make more money.

And there are plenty of horror stories about people being denied coverage by private insurers because they failed to dot some "i" or cross some "t" on a form. So we did our best to be as complete and accurate as possible in filling out the damnably long and complex Premier contract application.

Throughout the process, though, I was struck by how absurd the whole notion was of grilling us about the health problems we have so some Regence employee can decide whether we have too great a need for health insurance.

Then Regence could deny an application for health insurance, because the applicants need health care. Um, don't people need a way of paying for health care because they have health problems?

There's something desperately screwed-up with American medical care. That came home to us last night, even though we already knew it.

Expecting private health insurance plans to be the centerpiece of reforms, given that they are a huge part of the problem, isn't reasonable. This country needs a public option. Bad!

For all their paeans to the power of private enterprise, we know that private insurers simply can't compete with the government, because they offer an inferior service at higher prices. We know this because of the example of Medicare, which operates more efficiently than private insurance (Medicare spends only around 2 percent of its costs on overhead, a fraction of what private plans do) and gets higher satisfaction ratings.

Oh, I can believe it. After suffering through the Regence Premier application form last night, I can sure believe it.

Rising health insurance premiums are a "tax boost" also

Go figure -- not that this is easy to do when what I'm trying to figure out is right-wing platitudes.

Like, tax increases always are bad.

Which makes sense. Except when it doesn't. Like when a tax increase is needed to provide essential services for the least fortunate and most vulnerable in Oregon -- the elderly, sick, poor, unemployed, children.

Yet reflexive anti-tax types like Russ Walker already are threatening to put a couple of tax increases on the ballot, if, as expected, they get through both houses of the state legislature.
Download Oregon tax boost

What ever happened to compassionate conservatism?

Republicans talk a good game about valuing charity and respecting life, but when it comes time to make a charitable contribution via taxes that will help deserving people live a lot better, all we hear is no, no, no!

Here's another bit of right-wing illogic: We just got a letter from Blue Cross of Oregon informing us that our health insurance premium would go up about 30% on July 1.

Thirty freaking percent! In one year!

Half of that, best I can figure, is due to me being sixty years old for the first time in a policy period. Of course, my health status is just the same and I'm taking care of myself just as marvelously as ever.

But the Blue Cross actuaries assume that once I crossed the 60 line, my wife and I should pay about 15% more for our health insurance. The other 15% is a regular annual premium increase for Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield.

To be distinguished from the regular annual 26% rate increase Blue Cross got last year. That's over 40% in two years, nasty.

So here's a question for Russ Walker and the rest of the anti-tax crowd: where's your outrage about the health insurance premium increases? We really don't have a choice about changing insurance companies, given the pre-existing condition clause that screws you over if you have a health problem that you need insurance for and want to sign up for a different policy.

Thus Blue Cross has taken a whole lot of money from us with its rate increases. And we can't do anything about it.

How is this different from a tax increase? Aren't Republicans in favor of letting people keep their own money, rather than shipping it off to faceless bureaucrats -- which perfectly describes large health insurance companies like Blue Cross.

It frosts me that so much Republican resistance is being expressed to a public option in Obama's health care reform proposal. Let's have some competition. Maybe that would make private health insurers more efficient and responsive to their customers.

The post office, a government operation basically, delivers our mail just fine. Ditto on the "just fine" with government firefighters. And government police. Not to mention the government's armed forces.

I don't understand the objection to having government operate a health insurance plan. Just as the postal service is in competition with UPS and Federal Express, so can a public health care option compete with private insurers.

I'm tired of having our premium go up double digits every year, when inflation is so low. To me, that's a tax increase. I can't wait for Congress to do something about it.

Don't mess with Oregon's strip clubs

They're going to have to pry nude dancers out of Oregonians' sweaty, dollar bill-clenching (or is it a five spot these days?) hands.

At least, I hope so.

I haven't been in a strip club for a long time. But it bothers me when prudes in Tualatin want to amend the Oregon constitution so local governments could regulate where the clubs are located.

We're #1 in free speech. And strip clubs. Why surrender our top positions?

Oregon's constitution and rulings by the Oregon Supreme Court have protected nude dancing, adult bookstores -- even live sex shows -- through the free-speech clause. Those protections have helped dub Portland the country's per-capita strip-club capital.

Rick Attig of the Oregonian, Portland's largest newspaper, makes some great points.

But since 1994, Oregon voters have been asked three times whether they wanted to limit free-speech protections for the sex industry, and three times they clearly have answered no.

Tualatin is now seeking a fourth statewide vote on the issue. Again, if nude dancing was anywhere near the top of the list of Oregon's problems, maybe we could see starting yet another statewide argument on the issue. But when legislators are just trying to keep schools and universities open and provide jobless benefits and basic shelter, food and health care, Oregon doesn't have the luxury to obsess over women dancing naked on a Tualatin stage.

Conservatives freak out when the "will of the people" supposedly is challenged by liberal legislators, judges, or special interest groups. Yet here they are, wanting to revisit a free speech issue that Oregonians have decided three times already.

There's a big right-wing uproar over any proposal to "chip away" at the second amendment by banning automatic assault weapons or regulating sales at gun shows.

But when it's the free speech provision of Oregon's constitution that's being watered down, no problem.

Let's keep Oregon pleasantly godforsaken. Strip clubs, yes. Moralistic judgmentalism, no.

Outrageous bonuses go to PGE and AIG executives

We here in Oregon are getting a double dose of undeserved bonus outrage. Most attention is being given to $165 million in payments to AIG employees who oversaw the crazy financial dealings that led to the company's near collapse.

But let's not lose sight of our own local corporate outrageousness: Portland General Electric's CEO, Peggy Fowler, is retiring after being given a final pay package of $4.5 million and a retirement plan of $790,000 a year.

Our electricity comes to us via the excessively expensive graces of PGE. We've been trying to save energy by using compact fluorescent bulbs, wrapping duct pipes, replacing old windows, and adding more insulation.

But our monthly electricity bill keeps going up regardless, because PGE raises rates faster than we're able to cut down on our usage. Which makes Fowler's golden parachute deeply irritating, since we and other PGE customers are paying for it.

As the Oregonian article says:

Ratepayer advocates described the pay package as one more sign of a bloated cost structure at PGE, and said it betrayed a lack of accountability at a time when the utility is raising rates and thousands of customers are losing their jobs.

"What this shows is that there's no such thing as an economic downturn for the management of a monopoly utility," said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizen's Utility Board. "This is the highest cost utility in the region. They raised rates last year. At a time when the economy is suffering, where's the impact on the utility?"

The parallels between AIG and PGE are interesting -- beyond the fact that both companies have a three letter abbreviated name.

Back in 2003, in "The Public Fleecing by PGE," the Oregon Public Power Coalition said:

In 2002, PGE/Enron paid almost $1 million in retention bonuses to the company’s top five executives. PGE's CEO Peggy Fowler was paid a salary of $346,000, a performance-based bonus of $200,000 and a retention bonus of $400,000, for a total of $946,000 for 2002. In comparison, the head of the Los Angeles PUD makes $200,000 annually. The Oregonian wrote in a May 1, 2003 editorial (Adding insult to injury at PGE) criticizing PGE executive bonuses, "But it's the wrong tactic for a company whose workers lost their 401(k) savings in worthless Enron stock. And it's an insult to customers hit with 30 percent and 50 percent power rate increases."

Sound familiar?

Fowler and PGE have been blazing the outrageous bonus trail for AIG -- which also is out to reward its employees for costing the public huge amounts of money via incompetent managerial decisions.

Today we learned that much of AIG's taxpayer-supplied $170 billion went to pay overseas firms that had insured their mortgage-backed investments with AIG. When the securities went bad, they wanted their money.

Only problem was, AIG had neglected to put aside funds to back the insurance that had been issued. Seems like someone at the country's largest insurance company would have thought of this.

But hey, no problem! AIG just ponied up to the public trough and asked the federal government for a bailout. To prevent a world financial meltdown, the feds had to fork over the money.

And now the shameless incompetents at AIG want to reward the people who engineered this disaster with $165 million in bonus and retention payments. Shades of PGE.

AIG is claiming that the bonuses are needed to retain key employees in the company's financial products unit. As the New York Times says:

That unit was the source of the financial derivatives blamed for the near-collapse at the heart of the economy’s downturn.

On the radio today I heard someone say, "If these are the best and the brightest, then what AIG needs are the worst and dumbest."

Right on. Why the heck should the taxpayers, who own 80% of AIG after all of the government bailouts, fork out more money to keep people who should be fired?

And why should PGE customers, like my wife and me, pay Peggy Fowler many millions of dollars for raising our electricity rates considerably above those of other utilities in the Northwest?

[Update: Here's a clever idea from a congressman -- add a surtax that would only apply to the AIG bonuses, thereby effectively taxing them out of existence and returning the money to government. Excellent.]

Index investing rocks and Jim Cramer sucks

I've hugely enjoyed watching Jon Stewart roast CNBC in general, and Jim Cramer in particular, over the Comedy Central humor fire.

If you missed Stewart's spot-on demolishing of CNBC's and Cramer's supposed financial acumen, you can catch up here and here.

Cramer is entertaining on his frenetic "Mad Money" show. But his investing philosophy -- individual stock-picking and market timing -- is a proven loser. Why anyone follows his bad advice is a mystery to me.

Hopefully The Daily Show's expose of Cramer's cluelessness will lead fans of Mad Money to look elsewhere for sound investment advice.

On the first of Jon Stewart's rants he shows Cramer saying in 2007 that Bank of America "was going to 60 in a heartbeat." Today it's around 5, yet guess what? Cramer is still saying Buy! to B of A (sure sounds like it...watch very end of video on that link).

Here's one of Stewart's better lines.

Maybe the most shocking Jim Cramer gem is when he is advising that his audience buy stocks: "You should be buying these, and accept that they are overvalued, but accept that they are going to keep going higher. I know that sounds irresponsible but that's how you make the money." On that day in 2007, the Dow was at 13,930. It is now below 7,000.

"If I had only followed CNBC's advice," Stewart says at one point, "I'd have a million dollars today. Provided I started with a 100 million dollars."

Smart investors realize that what Cramer and CNBC are peddling is pure bullshit. Plenty of sound research has proven that index (or passive) investing leads to superior returns.

Sure, a few people manage to beat the market. And a few people also win big bucks in lotteries.

But just as it'd be crazy to follow the advice of a lucky Megabucks winner ("I chose the numbers in my children's birthdates"), so is it foolish to forget that some always will pick stock market winners, or forecast economic trends, purely by chance.

In the long run, they'll almost certainly do worse than if they'd tried to merely match the market through index investing. The Motley Fool has a 60 second way of convincing you of this.

For those who are deeply addicted to stock picking and market timing, there's a 12 Step Program for Active Investors. (Listen to the "musical interpretation" link...clever.)

I've been a fairly serious investor for about twenty-five years. For quite a while I was the type of guy who'd be a Cramer acolyte. I subscribed to investing newsletters, researched stocks, tried to devise foolproof investing schemes.

Until I realized that I was acting foolishly. And started reading about index investing.

Since 2002 we've had a big chunk of our investments in DFA (Dimensional Fund Advisors) index offerings. DFA is a pleasingly geeky outfit. Their approach is highly sophisticated, as you'll see if you take their philosophy tour -- which starts on this page.

I don't claim to understand all the economics jargon. But I do know that I sleep a lot more soundly now that I've given up trying to outsmart the market.

Currently I aim for about a 50-50 mix of equities and bonds. Back in 2002, when I got into index investing, it was 60-40. Here's a chart from Mint showing how we've done compared to the S&P 500 during the past year.

The green shows that we've been outperforming the overall stock market since the downturn began. No big surprise, since our 40-50% share of fixed income investments softens the financial meltdown pain.

As do our index funds (see this Vanguard video), partly since we're not forking out for large fees or transaction costs. The overall result is that we're down about 31% in the past year, while the S&P 500 is down about 47%.

That 16% difference means that we would have done about 50% worse without following a balanced asset allocation and index investing plan. This isn't rocket science -- just simple common sense.

Which is missing from CNBC and Jim Cramer.

They try to sucker viewers into believing that the talking heads on their cable channel can predict what's going to happen with both individual stocks and the overall market.

Warren Buffet says, in less than a minute, that index funds are the best investment for most people. Is Jim Cramer a better investor than Buffet? No way.

Crazy kicker law is downside of Oregon quirkiness

I've loved Oregon's independent streak since I moved here from California in 1971. But being pioneering and one-of-a-kind in the country isn't always something to be proud of.

Let's evaluate some examples of this state's legislative quirkiness.

First assisted suicide law ...great.
First bottle bill ...great.
First statewide land use planning law ...great.
Oregon beach bill ...great. (Hawaii only other state that guarantees public access)
Oregon medical marijuana bill ...great. (Second state to have one, after California)
Ban on self-service gas ...OK (New Jersey only other state with a ban)
No sales tax ...stupid (one of five states without one)
Oregon kicker law ...SUPER stupid 

Well, five of eight "great's" is a good score.

I gave a grudging "OK" to the ban on pumping our own gas because I like to sit in my car and play with my iPhone when it's cold or rainy (which is a lot of the time). But on nice days when a gas station is busy, I'd prefer to be able to do it myself.

It's the last two items that cause Oregon the most idiosyncratic financial grief. And they're related.

Lacking a sales tax, and with property tax revenues limited by Measure 5, government revenues in the state are heavily reliant on income taxes. Obviously these go up when times are good, and down when times are bad.

Oregon should have a sales tax to take advantage of tourist spending and the underground economy. This would help even out the state revenue stream, which is highly volatile.

However, the absolute stupidest thing Oregon does is refund income taxes when the projection of what those taxes will bring in during a two year period is off by 2% or more.

Only one state, quirky Oregon, engages in this insanity -- known as the "kicker" (because income taxes get kicked back to those who paid them).

Conservatives like to say that government should be run like a business. This is a great argument for doing away with the kicker.

What business would refund money to customers who bought their stuff if its actual revenues turned out to be higher than projected in the business plan? Answer: no company that wanted to stay in business.

The Oregonian's editorial board correctly said today, "Bust, boom, bust: Oregon is kicking itself again."

Here we go again, with the state fresh from handing back a billion dollars to taxpayers, ready again to shutter courts, take police off the roads, dent schools and go to taxpayers, hat in hand, for more revenue.

This is dumb, dumb, dumb, yet Oregon can't seem to stop doing it. The question now is, have you seen enough yet? Are you willing to give up the occasional unexpected Christmas tax rebate check -- temporarily -- to allow your state to build an adequate rainy day fund?

I'd like to see the kicker law done away with. But proposed changes to the kicker are moves in the right direction.

Arguments in favor of keeping the law as it is make zero sense.

Right-wingers call limiting the kicker a tax increase, which obviously it isn't. The stupid kicker law simply prevents the state from keeping legitimate tax revenues just because the state economist wasn't able to accurately forecast how much money would come in two years down the line.

If conservatives like the kicker philosophy so much, then they should be willing to forego an unexpected raise or stock market windfall if their family budget didn't anticipate this increased income.

(Here's a cartoon that sums up the kicker craziness.)

Hopefully Oregonians will recognize the wisdom of changing the kicker law. There are times when being the only state in the country doing something means Oregon should stop doing it, because it's a dumb idea.

The first few comments about the newspaper editorial were right-wing talk show'ish nonsensical. I liked how an assistant editor at the Oregonian, Rick Attig, jumped into the discussion with his own cogent comment.

Please give the piece another, more careful read. It says the kicker policy, and the effect of closing schools one year, sending back a big kicker check the next, then shutting down courts and scrambling not to close schools again is "dumb, dumb, dumb." That's hardly the same as calling voters "dumb." Tombdragon, are there any policies this state has that you think are dumb? And if the answer is yes, does that therefore mean that you are calling the Oregon electorate dumb? You all are, of course, free to be as cynical as you want to be about the Legislature or the political leadership in this state about whether they can be trusted to save tax reserves. But that doesn't give you a license to deliberately twist the meaning of our editorial.

Rather than use our blog and the comments we encourage to invite our readers to stop reading the paper, why don't you argue this editorial it on its merits? Why is a public finance system that has wreaked havoc with the state budget over the last 10 years the right one for Oregon?

Rick Attig, Associate Editor

Right on, Rick.

The strange tale of Randi Rhodes and Nancy Skinner

I'm so happy that Randi Rhodes has departed Air America. I liked her politics, but hated her radio talk show style.

(See my "Randi Rhodes is an embarrassment to progressives" and "Air America needs to dump Randi Rhodes.")

I used to have to grit my teeth when I tuned in KPOJ, Portland's Progressive Talk Station, during the late afternoon hours when Rhodes held forth -- egotistical, interrupting callers, unorganized, factually challenged, irritatingly shrill.

(Comments on this blog post echo my feelings about Rhodes.)

Now Nancy Skinner has replaced her.

Skinner is much easier to listen to: calm, well informed, thoughtful, respectful to guests (even conservative ones), focused on events of the day rather than her own self.

What's disturbing, though, is how Skinner came to be on the air in the fashion she is, because this shows the shakiness of progressive talk radio.

Listening to KPOJ while driving home tonight I heard Mike Malloy speaking about how he understood the problem of job losses, because he'd had three jobs recently.

Malloy and Rhodes were syndicated by Nova M Radio, which has filed for bankruptcy. Rhodes was involved in some sort of contract dispute with Nova M.

In a February 16 KPOJ blog post (ALL CAPS, echoing her over-the-top demeanor) Rhodes said she couldn't reveal details about the "disabling event," but assured her listeners that she wasn't responsible in any way for the dust-up that was keeping her off the air.

Here's some additional news and gossip about the Rhodes-Nova M controversy. Apparently Sheldon Drobny, the founder of Nova M and a co-founder of Air America, attempted suicide a few days prior to the dispute.

At first Nancy Skinner filled in for Rhodes. Then, she took over for Rhodes on Nova M -- joining a sinking broadcasting ship.

After Nova M went bankrupt, a company called On Second Thought took over. Its CEO was Mike Newcomb, a doctor from Arizona (I believe). The takeover announcement was made on the Nova M web site, which now is no more.

As is the short-lived On Second Thought, according to Mike Malloy. Now he's broadcasting independently, as is Nancy Skinner -- based on her tale I heard a few days ago about all the work it took to set up a national satellite feed from Detroit.

Malloy said that he isn't being paid, along with most (if not all) progressive talk show hosts.

Conservatives like Sean Hannity make millions, he said, while liberals like him have profit-sharing deals with radio stations. And sometimes even sell ads themselves.

That's sad. Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country by quite a bit. Obama is riding a cresting wave of progressive politics. Yet progressive talk radio is hanging on by a thread.

I don't undertand it. Nor does this blogger, who is equally disturbed at the situation. Unlike me, he wants Rhodes back on the air, and says:

One thing is clear. (NOT channel) If liberal talk radio is going to continue to exist, there needs to be a concerted effort to gather a consortium of “rich liberal” investors to finance it, and they should hire radio PROFESSIONALS to manage it. There are just too many instances where good-intentioned, but inexperianced people buy networks as a kind of hobby and run it into the ground, and the talent WITH it.

I agree, so long as Skinner continues to have a show, and Rhodes doesn't. I'm concerned that Rhodes is still shown on the 3-6 pm KPOJ listing, even though Nancy Skinner is heard during that time.

Please, KPOJ, don't bring back Randi Rhodes. You'll lose this Salem listener again if you do.

Sam Adams "Gay?" video offends some (not me)

From my south Salem viewpoint some sixty miles away from Portland, I feel light years distant from the "Sam Adams is a lying, cheating, despicable bastard!" frenzy that many Mayor-haters continue to engage in.

(To bring those outside Oregon up to speed, Portland Mayor Sam Adams is dealing with a scandal involving a relationship with a fellow gay guy who was 17 when they first met, and 18 when they had sex. Adams lied about the nature of the affair prior to his election last November. Read all about it here, here, and here.)

Today blogger Jack Bogdanski put up "A new low for Portland" post. When I saw the title I wondered what serious blow had befallen the greenest city in America ("a role model for the nation").

Turns out it was a You Tube video from last October called "Randy Leonard's Wild Gay Chase." Leonard is a Portland city council member. My wife and I watched it. Laughed almost continually. Saw nothing offensive at all.

Have a watch.

What we can't understand is how so many commenters on Bogdanski's post found this five-month-old video (in their words) unspeakable, ugly, idiotic, useless, not entertaining, vulgar, pathetic, unfunny, sophomoric, unbelievable, crude, inappropriate, disgusting.

Dudes, you all need to get out more. Spend some time on Comedy Central, where my wife and I hang out a lot. Laugh more and judge less. Loosen up.

Neither the world, nor Portland, is coming to an end because the Mayor, a city commissioner, and rock star Storm Large had some satirical video fun with Adams' gayness for a Portland tradition, Candidates Gone Wild. 

Like I said before...

Portland, realize how fortunate you are. The left-leaning citizens of Salem would be overjoyed to have a sex-crazed 42-year old gay mayor named Sam Adams.

They're stuck with Janet Taylor, who would never be caught doing anything illicit, and also will never be caught leading her town in an intelligent, creative, dynamic, Green manner (I say "they" because we live five miles outside of the city limits).

It'd be crazy if Portland cut loose a competent mayor like Sam Adams just because he tried to keep his on-the-edge-of-propriety sex life private. And, admittedly, out of the campaign for mayor spotlight.

Warren Buffet and me have one thing in common

While I'm waiting for my mood-elevating soma to arrive from the government, I'll try to reduce my financial meltdown anxiety by griping about what the federal stimulus and bailout plans are doing for us, personally.

In short: nothing.

At least, nothing that I've been able to discern from reading all the newspaper and magazine articles with headlines like, "How you'll benefit from the stimulus package."

Well, the only good news is that this makes me feel like a monetary brother to Warren Buffet, investing guru extraordinaire.

Our net worth and economic knowledge are vastly different, but both Warren and me are ticked at how financial failures -- corporate or individual -- are getting a much better deal than the rest of us.

Here's how Buffet sees things:

Funders that have access to any sort of government guarantee -- banks with FDIC-insured deposits, large entities with commercial paper now backed by the Federal reserve, and others who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government's umbrella - have money costs that are minimal.

Conversely, highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that, in relation to Treasury rates, are at record levels. Moreover, funds are abundant for the government-guaranteed borrower but often scarce for others, no matter how creditworthy they may be. ... Though Berkshire's credit is pristine -- we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country -- our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing.

Yeah, that's just how I feel. Still-solvent individuals are getting screwed just as much as successful firms like Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway are.

On the income side, money market interest rates are down to just about zero. Our interest-bearing checking account paid us 41 cents last month, even though we had an average daily balance of several thousand dollars.

I feel like telling West Coast Bank, "just keep your damn money." At the end of a year the CEO can buy himself a fancy large latte with the picayune interest. That way somebody will get some evident benefit from it.

Recently Vanguard reported it is closing Treasury money market funds to new investors because the yields are so low.

Money market investors across the industry have seen yields on their funds decline sharply in recent months. For example, the average yield among U.S. Treasury money market funds was only 0.15% as of December 31, 2008, down from 2.71% at the end of 2007 (source: Lipper Inc.). For a hypothetical investor with a $10,000 money market account, that's an annualized difference in income of $256.

So retirees and others who have acted responsibly, building up a decent nest egg of cash, now are getting hardly any income from their savings since the Federal Reserve has reduced short term interest rates to nearly zero.

Searching for a bright spot in the financial meltdown gloom, I figured that if we're getting just about no interest on our savings, then we should be able to borrow money for just about nothing.

Not exactly. Rates for a home equity line of credit are running between 4% and 10% at the MAPS Credit Union that we belong to. Home equity loans, between 5% and 10.6%.

That seems pretty steep, given how little financial institutions are paying out to depositors and, as Buffet says, how minimal money costs are to them.

Meanwhile, failed corporations like AIG keep on raking in big bucks from the government (which means us, the taxpayers, ultimately). This morning I heard Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tell a congressional hearing, "AIG was able to grow up without any adult supervision."

That was a nice off-the-cuff remark regarding necessary regulation. However, it doesn't negate the fact that the Federal Reserve chairman says AIG acted irresponsibly.

Yet still has gotten $150 billion from the government.

We need a new well. Not wanting to deplete our cash reserves, we're considering borrowing the money for it. It'd be nice if the stimulus or bailout packages threw us a financial bone that we could chew on.

But since we're retired, we don't get a break on payroll taxes. Since we aren't behind on mortgage payments, we don't get low-cost financing. Since we aren't a failed corporation, we don't get an infusion of capital.

What we get is next to zero interest on our savings, and a hefty comparative borrowing cost. Plus being able to watch our net worth sink along with the stock market.

Things would be a lot worse if Bush were still in office, or if McCain had won last November. Still, I'm waiting for the Obama economic bump.

Or failing that, a big box of soma to support my psyche through these tough times.

Stock market down -- we need a soma high

Contemplating today's continuing stock market meltdown, which is bearing a disturbing resemblance to the Great Depression, thoughts of soma started running through my anxiety-soaked head.

Remember soma? It's a drug featured in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." Wikipedia recaps a book that I read a long time ago:

All members of society are conditioned in childhood to hold the values that the World State idealizes. Constant consumption is the bedrock of stability for the World State. Everyone is encouraged to consume the ubiquitous drug, soma, which is probably a historical allusion to a mythical drink of the ancient Aryans. Soma is a hallucinogen that takes users on enjoyable, hangover-free "vacations".

Sounds pretty damn good right now. Bring on the soma, Obama.

I'm ready for a brave new world. Recently I've said to European-style socialism, bravo. Ditto to legalizing (and taxing) marijuana. Unfortunately, it's going to take a while before we get there.

This is why, in the interim, the government needs to keep our brains from exploding with thoughts of We're fucked! (which is pretty much all that I hear on cable news and see in the newspaper these days).

Thus, the need for soma.

Simply redirect a few billion dollars into emergency pharmacological research from all the money that's being thrown into financial bailouts, most of which doesn't seem to be doing any good.

A drug without negative side effects that makes you feel really good about whatever is happening...bring it on. Along with the World State. Who cares about freedom and democracy if we've got soma on the shelf?

If you're not convinced that soma is for you, here's a nice collection of soma-related quotations from "Brave New World." After seeing today's Dow Jones closing value, this passage appealed to me.

"And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your mortality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that's what soma is."

Cool! It sure would be nice if soma was available now. The same Huxley web site that provided the quotes has an article that speculates about what soma might be.

The substance that goes by that name has a rich ancient Vedic history. But religion or mythology isn't what the world requires now. We need a real drug that will make us look at our IRA, 401k, or brokerage house statements and think, Ah, so fine.

So just as the Obama administration is encouraging (or forcing) the auto industry to switch gears, this also needs to be done with the pharmaceutical industry.

There's plenty of soma-precursors for researchers to study and learn from. They need to get to work, pronto. Next time the Dow drops 300 points, I want to be in a Brave New World state of mind.

"Swallowing half an hour before closing time, that second dose of soma had raised a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds."

Legalizing marijuana would boost the economy

Way to go, Tom Ammiano. He's a California assemblyman who has introduced a bill to legalize marijuana in his state.

AB 390 would decriminalize pot but regulate it like alcohol, limiting sales to those 21 and over. It would also impose a tax of $50 per ounce—something Ammiano said could bring $1 billion annually into our cash-starved state.

The bill doesn't have much chance of passing, given the United States' irrational drug policies. But it's a much-needed step in the right direction.

Recently New Scientist ran a story, "Radical alternatives proposed for cannabis controls," that described why legalizing marijuana makes both scientific and societal sense.

What should we do to minimise the harm cannabis can cause to the health and welfare of users and to society at large? One answer, according to a report by a group of prominent academics and government advisers, is to change the law to allow the state to prepare and distribute the drug for recreational use.

This proposal is the most controversial of several recommendations from a commission assembled by the Beckley Foundation, a British charity dedicated to exploring the science of psychoactive substances. "The damage done by prohibition is worse than from the substance itself," says Amanda Feilding, the founder of the Beckley Foundation.

Click on this image to see the relative harm of cannabis, tobacco, heroin, and alcohol. It makes absolutely zero sense that the least harmful substance, cannabis, is illegal while tobacco and alcohol are blessed (and taxed) by governments.

The NORML blog keeps track of marijuana-related legislation and other policy initiatives aimed at bringing this country out of its crazy Reefer Madness! mentality. It was good to see that the Obama administration is going to put a stop to federal raids on state medical marijuana providers.

I also found "10 Reasons to Get High About Marijuana in 2009." Excellent.

If the Oregon legislature ever takes up a bill to legalize the selling of marijuana, I'll go to a hearing and present myself as living testimony in favor of cannabis' harmlessness. For a couple of years during my San Jose State college days, 1966-1971, I was stoned nearly every day.

Yet I got great grades, nearly all A's. My friends and I drove our cars and motorcycles all around the Bay Area, with nary a marijuana-fueled accident on our record. Nobody ever had the slightest desire to try hard drugs -- just other varieties of psychedelics.

Most perusasive of all in these difficult economic times, we contributed mightily to local restaurant profit margins. Those midnight munchie runs to Denny's put a lot of money into corporate pockets, and tips in the waitresses'.

Bring on European "socialism" -- the U.S. is ready for it

Driving back to Salem from Portland today, a single glance across the median of I-5 gave me a vision of how much better this country could be if we became more Euro-socialist (I prefer the term, "communitarian").

A car had stopped in the break-down lane. Next to it was a pickup with a seal on the door. I'm pretty sure it was one of the vehicles that helps drivers who are out of gas, or otherwise need assistance.

A government vehicle.

With that glance, a warm feeling of Wouldn't it be great if this act of governmental kindness extended across our whole society? rolled over me.

If people who needed health care were guaranteed they'd get it.
If losing your job didn't entail the risk of being tossed out onto the streets.
If getting a good college education was available to all, poor and rich alike.
If public transportation made it possible to get around without private cars.

Whenever friends come back from Europe, they extol the way of life there. The United States is horribly backward in so many ways, compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

I'm ready for some European style socialism. So are a majority of Americans, given the results of the past few elections. We're tried of unfettered individualism and irresponsible capitalism.

Bring it on, President Obama.

Where does money go in a financial meltdown?

When investments tank and lots of people are losing money, does this mean that a small number of fat cats are making money?

This question came in for quite a bit of discussion at our house last night. We hosted the monthly meeting of our Salon discussion group, where we talk about whatever is on people's minds.

And right now losing money in the financial meltdown is front and center in most American psyches.

A few in our group were convinced that somebody has the money they've lost in the stock market. "How could it just disappear?" they said. "It has to be somewhere, which means someone is profiting from our losses."

Fortunately, we had a retired economics professor, Russ, in the room, or we could have kept on arguing about this all night.

Because common sense argues for the "one person wins, another loses" financial view. After all, if you drop a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, and a guy behind you picks it up, you've lost $20 and he's gained the same amount.

But Russ pointed out that this is erroneous when it comes to investments -- which behave differently from cash in your pocket or a checking account.

The value of stock, or a home, can simply disappear. No one has to buy and sell it, even though buying and selling is one way the value of an investment is determined. Note: one way.

There are other ways, Russ said. We've seen these happening a lot the past few months, such as when bad economic news triggers a sharp decline in the stock market.

Share prices may open lower in the absence of buying and selling. If I understand correctly what Russ was saying, it is new information about likely future profits that reduces investment values.

Yes, sometimes it is possible to trace where the money goes in a series of stock trades. In this case the amount of money made by some is balanced by the amount lost by others.

However, this Associated Press story presents a broader and more accurate picture of what's happening in a financial meltdown.

Whether you're a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you've lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.

But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?

Or is it just — gone?

If you're looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that it was never really money in the first place.

Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it's simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.

This also is the answer given in today's Parade magazine "Ask Marilyn" feature by Marilyn vos Savant. She says that lost investment value in the stock market never existed in the first place, because it is based on what shares would theoretically sell for.

Makes sense.

For one thing, if the last transaction of a company's shares occurs at a $100 trade value, this doesn't mean that everyone who owns those shares could completely sell out at that price.

Obviously all that selling would drive down the price, just as every house in a neighborhood may be worth $500-600,000 -- but if each owner puts a "For Sale" sign up at once, almost certainly they won't get what they think their investment is worth.

Here's another answer to the question "When the stock market crashes, where does the money go?" Same conclusion: nowhere, because it never really existed.

The money does not "go" anywhere. It is literally lost. Stock market money is mostly a store (measure) of value, not a medium of exchange. When the value of a stock goes down, the money by which it is measured simply disappears.

Remember that money, especially as a store of value, is a matter of faith: it cannot be exchanged for anything tangible (e.g., gold or silver) except in a market in which the value of products is largely a matter of faith. The value of money in the stock market is based on faith in the value of the stocks that the money represents. So when the value of the stocks declines, the money that measures the value of the stocks declines by the same amount. No one gets the money that is lost. It simply evaporates.

Well, it's reassuring to know that someone else doesn't have the money that my wife and I have lost in the meltdown.

But it sure would be a lot more reassuring to get the money back.

Let's make Obama Philosopher-King

I'm ready to turn over control of our county to Barack Obama. For a while. Not permanently.

It just seems like we need a really wise Philosopher-King right now, one dude who's in charge of things and doesn't have to deal with fools in Congress.

In time of war we have a Commander in Chief. This economic crisis deserves a similar temporary turning over of leadership control to a single individual who does whatever is needed to preserve and protect the United States.

Now, I realize this is a fantasy.

Minor details like the Constitution prevent the President from ignoring Congress and issuing Philosopher-King edicts. But I wish such could happen.

Yesterday it was inspiring to watch Obama handle his first presidential press conference with confidence, dexterity, eloquence, and aplomb. Paul Begala, CNN analyst, summed up the difference between Obama and Bush:

It was a very serious press conference about serious issues.  And I give him very high marks.  Yeah, he talked a little long, but you know what a relief after George W. Bush.  Watching Bush complete a sentence is like watching a fat, drunk guy cross an icy road…you just knew he wasn’t going to make it.  And this guy has at least some command over the issues.

Well, much more than "some command." Obama had an in-depth grasp of what needs to be done to get us out of our current economic malaise.

I've got a lot of confidence that Obama, backed up by his all-star administration team, could lead the United States into a dramatic recovery within a few years. But right now he's having to move in a direction set by people with minds much less savvy than his.

Namely, members of Congress.

Being one of the millions who contributed to Obama's campaign, I just got a message from Organizing for America, which has taken over his vast email list. It began with:

Last night, President Obama gave his first-ever prime time press conference to call for immediate action on his economic recovery plan. Today, the Senate voted to pass the President's plan.

Wrong possessives.

It's not the President's plan. It sprouted from the semi-competent psyches of the House Democratic leadership, then was pruned and twisted out of shape by even more clueless Senators.

Obama could have done much better. And should have. Apparently his vision of collegial bipartisanship stopped him from saying at the start, "This is the way the stimulus bill has to be."

Wish he had.

Who suspected on election night last November, when Democrats surged to victory, that three Senate Republicans would be calling the shots on an economic stimulus plan in February 2009?

I don't want Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter deciding how to get the United States economy back on track. Yet there they are, warning that if they don't get their moderate Republican way, they won't vote for the stimulus bill and supply the sixty votes needed to get it past a filibuster.

On the front page of the Portland Oregonian today I saw a headline that said, "Compromise in D.C. cuts money Oregon officials desperately want."

The story talks about how $400 million for school construction, teacher salaries, and such won't be coming to Oregon if the three Republicans aren't overruled. Hopefully they will be.

A New York Times editorial gets it right.

When members of the House and Senate sit down this week to craft a final version of their differing bills, they must include the most-effective provisions — those that provide powerful stimulus and help those Americans who are most in need.

There is a decent deal to be had in negotiations. Whether Congress and the administration get there will depend a lot on Mr. Obama’s leadership and his insistence on a better bill.

As does Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who called the moderate Senate Republicans "the destructive center."

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Right on. Obama should do the Philosopher-King thing and say that he'll veto any stimulus bill that doesn't do X, Y, and Z.

Let the Republicans take the responsibility for pushing the economy off a cliff (or rather, off a steeper one). I suspect their filibuster threat would evaporate. If not, so be it.

As the Times editorial said:

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

Stimulus bill debate shows weirdness of Republicans

I'm doing my best to be open-mindedly bi-partisan as I follow the debate over the stimulus bill, just as my man, President Obama, is asking of the country.

But it's tough. Real tough. I listen to Senate Republicans talk about how they see the economy getting back on track and I can't help but think ... that's so freaking weird!

They don't seem to live in the real world.

Today I heard Sen. John Thune holding forth on cable news about his utterly wacky plan to scrap the entire $936 billion Senate stimulus bill and replace it with an equal amount of tax rebates for 182 million Americans.

Thune said that individuals could spend the money better that government could.

When his interviewer pointed out that previous tax rebates intended to stimulate the economy didn't do very much, because people saved much of the windfall rather than spending it, Thune said that saving it would be fine also, since banks need to be recapitalized -- lacking money for loans.

That's not true, of course. Banks are sitting on lots of money. They're reluctant to make loans for other reasons.

The biggest Republican weirdness, though, is the overall view conservatives have of our society.

Like Thune, they only see individuals merrily spending their way along, buying whatever they like -- big screen TV! a new car! golf clubs! -- without any connection to a larger community.

It's ridiculous to think that individuals always can spend money more wisely than government.

People buy lots of useless crap. I do it all the time. When my taxes go into state or federal coffers, there's a greater chance that something valuable will be bought that benefits everybody.

Like improved roads that we all travel on. Like better schools that our children are educated in. Like medical research that will enable all of us to live longer, healthier lives. Like green energy technologies that will help the country be much more independent of foreign oil.

There's no "us" in the conservative Republican view of the U.S. It's all about me, me, me -- letting individuals spend money however they want to, while the infrastructure fabric that binds our culture together becomes more and more threadbare.

I don't want to live in a Me FIrst society. Most Americans don't. They recognize that we all sink or swim together, which is why Obama was elected so handily last November.

Yes, we can.

We can pass a stimulus bill that will help everybody in this country, not just a favored few. We can remember -- after eight long years of Bush era forgetting -- that every individual is part of a societal whole.

Yes, we can.

Advice from Salem for Sam Adams: don't resign

Sam, don't resign. That's my advice -- and it's been echoed by every progressive friend I've talked with here in Salem over the past few days.

Based on blogospheric news this afternoon, I'm glad to hear that you seemingly are going to stay on as Portland Mayor and not let the Prude Patrol chase you out of office.

There's lots of ways to look at your involvement with a 17-18 year old gay guy, and your subsequent efforts (a.k.a. "lying") to cover up the sexual nature of this relationship.

Here's how things look from my vantage point fifty miles or so south of scandal central.

Portland, realize how fortunate you are. The left-leaning citizens of Salem would be overjoyed to have a sex-crazed 42-year old gay mayor named Sam Adams.

They're stuck with Janet Taylor, who would never be caught doing anything illicit, and also will never be caught leading her town in an intelligent, creative, dynamic, Green manner (I say "they" because we live five miles outside of the city limits).

It'd be crazy if Portland cut loose a competent mayor like Sam Adams just because he tried to keep his on-the-edge-of-propriety sex life private. And, admittedly, out of the campaign for mayor spotlight.

Politicians are entitled to lie for good reasons. Based on opinion pieces like this one, the Resign Sam! feeding frenzy mainly seems to be founded on Adams not telling the truth when he was asked, prior to election day, about his relationship with the marvelously named Beau Breedlove (if Beau goes into gay porn, he won't have to take on a nom de plume).

I keep hearing, "This isn't about sex. It's about Sam Adams not telling the truth." Also, "If Adams hadn't lied to voters, he wouldn't have been elected."

OK, let's ponder the implications of those statements.

They're contradictory, which led Adams into a double-bind situation that justified his dissembling. If this isn't about sex, but rather lying, like so many people claim, then if Adams had told the truth about bedding an 18 year old it shouldn't have had much effect on his campaign for mayor.

Yet the same people also say that if Adams had told the truth, Portlanders would have been repulsed by a middle-aged man having (legal) sex with a teenager and many wouldn't have voted for him.

This shows that it really was about sex, which Adams -- savvy politician that he is -- realized. So he lied about his relationship with Breedlove, knowing that judgmental, prudish voters would punish him at the ballot box.

Imperfection is an asset, not a liability. Sure, in an ideal world politicians would always tell the truth. And citizens would always cast their vote for good reasons unrelated to a candidate's sexual predilections.

But this isn't an ideal world.

Those who want it to be so aren't in tune with reality. They're adrift either in a fundamentalist religion fantasy realm, where everybody obeys a moral code issued by God ("Thou shalt not lie"), or a secular utopia that's equally unrealistic.

People are complex creatures.

Especially talented, high-strung, intelligent, creative men like Sam Adams -- plus Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Gary Hart, and any number of other middle-aged males whose passion for life (and politics) spilled over into a passion for out of wedlock or barely-legal sex.

Europeans understand much better than we do that an elected official's policies are the important thing, not with whom he takes his pants off. A British commentator  wrote:

Britain is sliding towards an American style of politics, where we obsess about the "character" of our politicians rather than their policies. This is new. Just 40 years ago, we had a Prime Minister - Harold Macmillan - who famously said: "If you want personal morality, talk to a bishop, not a politician". Few British people disagreed. (It's probably just as well: Lord Boothby was having an affair in the Downing Street flat with Macmillan's wife, Dorothy, and also sharing young boys with Ronnie Kray).

...Of course, character and personality matter to some limited extent - but only insofar as they shape policy. Margaret Thatcher's stubbornness, for example, matters because it made her incapable of reversing catastrophic policies such as the poll tax. But to suggest that David Blunkett is more likely to lie because he has slept with a married woman is to disregard even the most basic history. Does Franklin Roosevelt's adultery undermine the New Deal? Does Adolf Hitler's fidelity to Eva Braun tell us much?

Politicians who can't be imagined doing anything other than sticking to the "straight and narrow" (I'm thinking George Bush) likely are going to be similarly unnaturally rigid with their policies.

I'd much rather have my president, or mayor, be wild and crazy in the bedroom and passionately intelligently creative in the policy arena.

I'll end with a bit of philosophy from Alan Watts that supports my Stay On Sam moral position:

The real goodness of human nature is its peculiar balance of love and selfishness, reason and passion, spirituality and sensuality, mysticism and materialism, in which the positive pole has always a slight edge over the negative.

(Were it otherwise, and the two were equally balanced, life would come to a total stalemate and standstill.)

Thus when the two poles, good and bad, forget their interdependence and try to obliterate each other, man becomes subhuman -- the implacable crusader or the cold sadistic thug.

It is not for man to be either an angel or a devil, and the would-be angels should realize that, as their ambition succeeds, they evoke hordes of devils to keep the balance.

This was the lesson of Prohibition, as of all other attempts to enforce purely angelic behavior, or to pluck out evil root and branch.

Last chance for some Bush bashing

Starting tomorrow, everything in the United States (heck, the whole world!) is going to change.

Change, change, change. Obama's inauguration is going to bring some wonderful a'changin (just like his campaign did).

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

So I've got to get in my last Bush bashing today.

Because soon I'm going to be caught up in the Wonderful World of Obama where everything is going to be so much better, I might forget how much I disliked what Bush did to the country the past eight years.

Stephen Colbert is fond of saying, "Bush, a great president...or the greatest president?"

Whenever I hear that I translate it into, "Bush, a bad president...or the worst president?" There's good reason to choose the latter.

He's been a disaster for this country, aside from a few small semi-successes like No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and increased AIDS prevention funding.

Remember the good economic times Bush inherited at the end of Clinton's presidency? The budget surpluses? The respect America had around the world? The pride people took in having a national leader who could speak eloquently and wisely?

Bush flushed all that down the drain.

Looking back, it was totally predictable. Bush is a fool. An intelligent fool, yes, but a decent IQ and an Ivy League education doesn't prevent someone from being a functional imbecile when it comes to managing a country.

When I see Bush on television these days he looks just like Alfred E. Neuman to me. Clueless. Especially about how clueless he is. What? Me worry?

Oh dear God, yes. We clear-thinking, left-leaning Americans worried. From November 2000 right up until now. We were correct.

Not about everything that Bush would screw up, but pretty darn close. If you're one of the few Bush-defenders left in this country, keep this in mind if my ranting seems overblown.

Progressives feel like they've been shouting "Fire, fire!" for eight long years while pointing to flames shooting out of a building.

A majority of voters heard the call in 2000, but one judge on the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush. He got an actual majority in 2004, which simply goes to show that you can fool most of the people some of the time.

Now, finally, Americans have woken up, largely because of Barack Obama -- with a lot of help from a loud economic meltdown alarm clock.

I was pleased to read today that even "In McCain Country, Obama Acceptance Grows." I'm confident that he's going to turn out to be a genuinely great president. Maybe even the greatest. (Colbert is going to have to find a new joke.)

Obama is going to bring this country together in a way that Bush was incapable of, given his cluelessness and incapacity to string together words into a coherent thought.

In that warm spirit, I'll end with some George Bush positivity. Hmmmm. Let's see...

I'll give Bush credit for doing a decent job on preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. We haven't had one, so he did something right here. Yes, Bush and Cheney trampled on the Constitution in the process, but this doesn't take away from the fact that another 9/11, though anticipated, never occurred.

What else? Well, I just learned that Bush likes fart jokes. So do I. Hey, we've got something in common.

Hopefully he'll get an iPhone loaded with iFart as a leaving-office gift. I like the idea of him sitting at home in Texas laughing hysterically to electronic farts.

He's so much better suited for that than being president of the United States.

Digital TV changeover will hurt many rural viewers

Since we watch television via satellite (DISH network now, DirecTV soon), the February 17 changeover from analog to digital won't affect us -- since satellite already uses a 100% digital signal.

However, quite a few rural viewers are going to find favorite stations disappearing in a few weeks, even if they've gotten a converter box that allows an old television to tune in digital TV (new televisions have a built-in digital tuner).

Harry, a HinesSight regular who, like me, lives in rural Oregon, made me aware of this problem recently via email. He wanted me to complain about the changeover.

Digital reception sucks the dripping bag around here. Where we could watch a so-so quality analog signal; with digital, its either go or no go.I would like to know how many folks are just simply going to lose the ability to watch TV.

And no, I am not going to pay. We got our converter box and erected the biggest TV antenna you have ever seen. We get Ch 22. Period. Even channels that are REALLY sharp in analog; nothing. "No signal"

Will you consider ripping on this subject? I would like to see a 2 year extension on analog.

Glad to oblige. Didn't Descartes say I blog, therefore I rant (or something like that)?

First, since Harry wasn't an Obama supporter I can't resist pointing out that here's an issue he and Barack agree on. The Obama transition team is calling for a delay in switching from analog to digital TV transmission.

Before writing this post I had to educate myself some on the issue through the University of Google.

I learned that the digital go-or-no-go Harry mentioned is called the "cliff effect." Because your reception falls off a sharp cliff into unwatchable land if you live quite a ways from a digital transmission, or are in a valley beyond a TV tower's line of sight.

With analog signals you can have a sort-of-watchable signal. I remember this from my childhood days, since we lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains and got a fuzzy picture at best.

But you could watch it. With digital, though, the picture is either there or it isn't, as Consumers Union points out.

The all-or-nothing nature of digital broadcasts also comes into play. With analog stations, a weak signal can still yield a watchable picture—it might be snowy or have ghosts, but you'll get a continuous picture and uninterrupted sound.

If you're getting marginal reception of digital signals, both the picture and sound might freeze or break up to the point that it's not watchable. If you're really on the fringes—either too far from a tower or with too many obstacles in the way—you'll see a black screen that says "Weak or no signal."

Apparently this is happening with Harry. I feel for him.

And for millions of other Americans, many of them low-income, who are going to get screwed over when the digital changeover happens and they suddenly find themselves watching a big blank nothing on TV.

I'd been under the impression that the main problem was the feds running out of money to fund the coupon program that lowered the cost of getting a conversion box. (People now are being put on a waiting list to get the coupons.)

I hadn't realized that some rural residents won't be able to get a watchable digital signal even if they've gotten a box and upgraded their antenna, as Harry has.

Over the air digital TV doesn't travel as far, or as well, as analog TV. There are resources that help a person choose the best antenna for their location. But if you live in a digital broadcast desert, no antenna is going to bring in the analog stations that you used to enjoy watching.

Unfortunately, there's a chance no antenna will work for you. Recent reports indicate that some households are in fringe areas with poor reception, and for them, off-air digital TV might not be a good option.

That leaves them with an expensive "let them eat cake" (cable or satellite service) option. Or to go television hungry.

I don't know what the solution is. Seemingly nobody does. So it seems reasonable to do as Obama suggests: put the digital changeover on hold for a while.

Study the situation some more. Give rural and low-income people more time to adjust to digital over the air broadcasting.

If you've lost your job, the last thing you need is to lose your free TV also.

Let's put atheism back into Christmas

We're not Christians. We've stopped putting up a Christmas tree. We don't like Christmas music, especially songs that mention Jesus or God.

We're also patriotic Americans. We believe in the separation of church and state. So we applaud the Freedom from Religion Foundation's placement of an atheist display in the Washington state capitol.

Who can disagree with what it says?

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Well, lots of people. Most people.

Which is why it's so important that the display have its place alongside a nativity scene. Public places, like a state capitol, can't be limited to only private citizens who hold majority views.

Christians are free to worship as they like, without interference, in their homes and churches. But if they want to promote their religious belief in the public square, they should expect some dissenting company.

I was glad to see that the man who got the state to allow the nativity scene says that the atheist display is fine.

He feels that people can make up their own minds about what to believe. That's a broad-minded Christian attitude. Contrast that with what I heard a dogmatic true believer say in a radio interview.

I believe in Jesus Christ. If you don't that's OK, because you're going to fry like a Jimmy Dean pork sausage.

Oh, how loving.

That's why I'm not religious: I can't believe in a God who punishes people for being rational, questioning, and non-dogmatic.

So let's bring atheism back into Christmas. Pagans started this holiday and we shouldn't forget the true meaning of it -- which has nothing to do with Christ.

Spend your money before the financial meltdown takes it

[Pseudo-legal disclaimer: This blog post is being written under the simultaneous influence of a strong cup of coffee and a glass of pinot noir. The financial advice it contains should be considered questionable, at best, unless you are under the influence of a more powerful psycho-active substance. Then likely it'll make as much sense to you as it does to me.]

I just came up with a great financial recovery plan for the United States. Even more, the world!

People need to realize that if they spend their money themselves, they can beat the stock and housing markets to the punch. Meaning, if anybody is going to make our money disappear, it should be you and me.

We need to take control of our own financial meltdown. Don't let distant markets and shadowy traders reduce your net worth to a fraction of what it used to be.

You can do it yourself! Get empowered!

This marvelous economic insight came to me this afternoon as I was leaning against the doorway of our downstairs bathroom, listening to my wife and Darren Gollakner (a talented guy who makes cool stuff) discuss remodeling plans.

Since we'd already remodeled our upstairs bathroom, which I mostly use, I felt detached from the conversation. It didn't matter much to me what they came up with.

But being the Hines household's payer of bills and prime overseer of our steadily shrinking retirement portfolio, my inner cash register was paying attention to the cost of the remodeling project that was being hatched before my otherwise mostly uncaring eyes.

Then I heard myself blurting out to Darren, "We've decided to give our money to you before the stock market can take it."

Laurel and Darren looked at me quizzically and went back to their plan-hatching.

However, as so often happens to me (this is why I'm a blogger), I was immediately struck by the brilliance of the fleeting thought that had darted through my mind.

Now, the more I thought about it -- on a subsequent dog walk -- the more logical holes I could identify in my one-sentence economic recovery plan. So naturally I've decided to ignore those holes and focus on my intuitive, though possibly illusory, sense of genius.

Economists and legislators are worried sick that people have stopped their spending ways. Americans are afraid to buy stuff when they see home values, stock prices, and jobs disappearing.

Well, they need to ponder (not too much, and preferably after consuming a stiff drink) my profound advice: Get rid of your money on your own, before something else takes it.

Look, if you've already spent your money on stuff you want, you can't lose it. It's already gone! You've got no worries!

(Also, no money, but let's not worry about that for the moment; have another drink and this blog post will make more sense to you.)

Plus, you've got the stuff, like a remodeled bathroom, that the money you no longer have brought you.

So your preemptive strike against an additional financial downturn -- spend it before you lose it -- has succeeded on two fronts: (1) You've inoculated yourself against a decline in your net worth by reducing it on your own, and (2) You've bought stuff that you can enjoy while eating rice and beans and waiting for your house to be foreclosed.

What's the downside?

(Again, please focus on the big picture here, which will be clear if you don't think too much about extraneous economic details, such as your personal bankruptcy.)

Well, I'm pleased that I've been able to do my part in getting our country back on track. If President-elect Obama's financial recovery team wants to use my ideas, they're most welcome.

All I ask is that the strategy be called the Brian Hines Spend It Before You Lose It And Make America Prosperous Again Plan (wordy, but I'm open to edits so long as the "Brian Hines" part stays).

Big news coming on Sarah Palin's pregnancy

Thanks to Jack Bogdanski, I've had my interest rekindled in the Sarah Palin fake pregnancy story.

His post led me to a titillating "More coming soon!" on the Palin's Deceptions blog.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, one of my very hard working research assistants has uncovered a piece of evidence which may well turn out to be the final nail in the coffin. I believe it demonstrates conclusively that Gov. Sarah Palin was never pregnant. It has nothing to do with Bristol, or Willow, or anyone else. Because it is so critical, I am proceeding slowly with this one... talking to my attorney among other things. But watch the blog over the next 24-48 hours. You won't be disappointed.

Oh, I have been...watching the blog. Forty-eight hours is up tomorrow night. Hope there won't be a letdown.

I scrolled through all of the comments on the teaser post, looking for hints of what might be coming. This seems to be a plausible guess:

If you ned to check with an attorney, I am guessing that you have some concerns regarding the publication of medical records which show that Sarah Palin had either a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy before Trig was born, which would be conclusive evidence unrelated to Bristol or anyone else. Since you appear confident that you will be able to make the information public in the next 24-48 hours, I therefore also assume that the information you and your assistant have uncovered has previously been made public, perhaps as part of a long ago medical records disclosure by Sarah Palin when she ran for some other public office or was appointed to some other public position. If this is the case, it is quite commendable for you to be so careful,and bravo for your outstanding detective work!

Though I'd love to see Palin caught in a lie, there would be a downside: she'd be much less likely to run for president in 2012.

The more she's adored by the Republican base, the more I like it. Sarah Palin is unpopular with all but the most right-wing voters.

She dragged down McCain, and she'd drag down herself if she got the Republican nomination next time around.

(Here's a sample of the extensive Palin pregnancy research conducted by the Palin's Deceptions blogger. The associated website has more juicy details.)

Financial fear reflected in kitchen cupboard

Here's another unsettling leading indicator for the stock market: a large 50.8 oz. bottle of organic, extra virgin, first cold pressed olive oil that I managed to cram into our cupboard with about 1/8 inch to spare.

I usually buy another brand. In a smaller bottle.

But yesterday, on my weekly natural food store shopping expedition, I noticed that Napa Valley Naturals was on sale. I figured I could save almost ten dollars by buying super-sized olive oil.

This isn't like me. Not to that extent.

Laurel is picky about the taste of olive oil. We'd settled on Spectrum as a brand we liked. When I brought home the Napa Valley Naturals bottle, she said "Maybe it won't taste as good."

"But we saved ten bucks," I told her.

All over the country, I'm sure, people are acting similarly. I've always looked for a good deal, but never before have I felt so anxious about preserving our money -- because the stock market and housing bust has taken away such a big chunk of our net worth.

When I go to Starbucks now, usually I ask for a grande Pike Place cup of coffee rather than a venti skinny vanilla latte, my habitual drink. I'm saving $1.50 or so every time I feel a need for a caffeine fix.

That doesn't make a huge difference in our household budget, but it gives me a sense (illusory though it may be) of having some control over our financial future when I read headlines like today's "Markets dive in last hour, carving new lows."

Checking the New York Times web site a few hours later, I saw that the story had been replaced with "Stocks drop sharply and credit markets seize up."

Oh, thanks for the news. I was under the impression that the $700 billion bail-out was doing something to reassure the credit markets. Guess not.

As a new bout of fear gripped the financial markets, stocks fell sharply again on Thursday, continuing a months-long plunge that has wiped out the gains of the last decade.

The credit markets seized up as confidence in the nation’s financial system ebbed and people rushed to put money in Treasuries, the safest of investments. Some markets are now back to where they were before Congress approved the $700 billion financial rescue in October.

Not to depress the spirits of the auto industry further, but I'm rethinking our car purchase plans.

A three-year lease on our Toyota Highlander Hybrid is up in January. We'd envisioned turning the car in and either leasing or buying a 2009 model, maybe the spiffier Limited version this time.

However, now I'm not sure that even 0% financing (which isn't available on Toyota hybrids, but is on other models) would entice us to get a new car.

The financial meltdown is just too damn scary. I feel like circling the household budget wagons, not going out on any unnecessary limb.

Our current car is fine, just not ideal.

"Fine" is sounding, well, just fine -- compared to forking out the bigger bucks that it would take to do anything other than keep our present vehicle. Multiply us by millions of other scared shitless consumers, and you've got the makings of a dismal selling season.

I've been investing, seriously and semi-seriously, for over twenty-five years. I've never felt so uneasy about our portfolio -- and we're not major risk takers.

Retirees that we are, we're about 50-50 in equities and fixed income, with a healthy percentage of index funds in each category. So however much the stock market has dropped, our investments are down only about half as much (bonds and Treasury bills are increasing in value, as investors snap them up).

"Only," though, is still a hell of a lot.

Amazingly, I read in the first NY Times story about the market decline:

And a new report that jobless claims had crested to their highest levels in 16 years reminded investors that the frail economy continues to weaken.

“We think it’s going to continue to go lower,” said Ryan Detrick of Schaeffer’s Investment Research. “We don’t think people are scared enough. They’re just not showing enough fear. People are numb to this, they’re almost immune to it.”

Well, I beg to differ.

It's more that people know they can't do anything about it, so when I learned that yesterday the market was at its lowest point in six years, and today it's down to the 1997 level (below earlier bear market lows), I was as much resigned as fearful.

What will be, will be. And whatever happens, I can buy cheaper bottles of olive oil and less expensive coffee, plus hold onto our car instead of getting a new one.

I just wish that somebody competent was handling the federal government's response to this crisis, instead of the Bush administration bunglers.

Where is George, by the way? Has he headed off to his ranch early? He sure isn't doing anything to reassure people that the economy won't be completely melted down by the time Obama takes office.

Which can't come soon enough for me. And, I suspect, for the stock market.

Surprise! Republicans make sense...on auto bailout

The first coming of Obama is near. Praise the One!

For he is bringing miracles to pass: I watched "Meet the Press" this morning and agreed much more with Sen. Richard Shelby, a dyed-in-the-right Alabama Republican, than with Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat.

Maybe this is a sign that the country is getting past red state vs. blue state stuff. When the policy rubber hits the road, what matters much more is whether something makes sense.

And Shelby had the edge here. Why should taxpayers fork out $25 billion or more to give to the clueless Detroit auto industry?

First of all, I think that we would have to see conditions that would fundamentally change the way Detroit does business.  They're not building the right products.  They did at one time.  They've got good workers.  But I don't believe they've got good management.  They don't innovate.  They're a dinosaur, in a sense, and I hate to see this because I would like to see them become lean and, and hungry and innovative.  And if they did and put out the right product, they could survive.  But I don't believe the $25 billion they're talking about will, will make them survive.  It's just postponing the inevitable.

Amen to that. I haven't owned an American car since the 1970s, when some insane impulse led me to buy a crappy Ford Fairmont. After that, never again.

We're a happy two-Toyota family at the moment, both of them hybrids (a Prius and a Highlander). Detroit chose to keep on making giant SUVs and pickups because they were more profitable than smaller cars. Until people stopped buying them.

And now the Big Three, who have shrunk a lot, want the federal government to reward them for making bad business decisions.

Not surprisingly, Rust Belt Democrats like Levin are on board with that. Republicans like Shelby aren't. This is one of those rather rare times I tilt toward the "R's" rather than the "D's."

In an LA Times opinion piece, "Earn the bailout, Detroit," Douglas Olin explains why lavishing cash on the auto industry won't work without getting a lot in return.

Maybe it's time for America to buy some broad-based social benefits in return for public investment in these companies. If the U.S. government -- on behalf of the people -- is going to spend considerable sums of public money and incur public debt to keep these institutions alive, let's insist on returns that benefit society as a whole, not merely Big Three shareholders, management and employees.

What might these public benefits be? Well, for one, isn't it time for Detroit to turn out a car that gets at least 100 miles per gallon -- and to do it in three years? Couldn't we demand, in return for public money, that management deliver dramatic new fuel economy standards, with appropriate rewards for success and sanctions for failure?

Since transportation (mostly autos) generates one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, can't we demand auto fleets that systematically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the 30% by 2016 proposed by California?

The Vice Chairman of General Motors in charge of product development has called global warming a "crock." Yet this know-nothing expects taxpayers to ignore his astounding ignorance about a fundamental factor affecting car design and sales, and throw billions down a GM black hole.

I'm confident that Obama won't fall for this, though he'll face pressure from auto industry-friendly Democrats like Levin to write the Big Three a blank check. He's said that he won't do that.

And these statements sound pretty good to me.

Allowing the U.S. auto industry to fail is not an option, President-elect Barack Obama said in an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes that aired Sunday night.

"For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan — what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?"

Not like it does now, that's for sure.

Merkley vs. Smith: follow who's winning

In Oregon the biggest remaining election question mark is the U.S. Senator race between Jeff Merkley and Gordon Smith. Votes are still being counted.

Here's how to track them, in order of my political junkie preference:

(1) Over at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm is doing a great job analyzing which counties haven't fully reported yet, and what this means. He's updating this post regularly. Currently Smith is up by almost 8000 votes, but Kari is projecting a 32,000 vote Merkley win after Multnomah and other Merkley-leaning counties completely come in.

(2) The Daily Kos Electoral Scorecard features a map that's a lot of fun to play around with. Click on "Senate," then Oregon, and you can see how many precincts have reported in each county. There were some glitches in this AP-based map earlier (Multnomah was incorrectly shown as 100%), but hopefully they've been fixed.

(3) KGW is keeping track on how the Senate race is going. No analysis, but the numbers change frequently. It looks like they're using the AP figures in (2), so far as I can tell.

Update: Jack Bogdanski also is analyzing how the returns are going. He's not quite as optimistic as Kari, but still projects a Merkley win by around 15,000 votes.

Election jitters: my fate, and $84, hangs in balance

2:51 pm, West Left Coast time
Ooh! First polls close in less than ten minutes. I'll be watching CNN to see if they call it for Obama by 3:05. Sure hope so. I'd rather pay $84 than have a foreshortened life.

Yesterday I talked with a Macintosh consultant about coming over to get a wireless laser printer working with my MacBook. He said he could come at 4 today. I told him that I'd be obsessing over election results at that time. We made an appointment for Thursday morning.

"That way," I said, "I can save myself your $84 hourly fee if Obama loses, since I'll probably have committed suicide by then, not being able to face the prospect of seeing Palin play at being vice-president for four years."

Interesting note: he said that every Macintosh owner he knows is for Obama. Mac sales have been on the uptick recently, so hopefully this bodes well for an Obama-Biden victory. We'll know soon.

Updates on my mental health will follow after I get back from a dog walk and see what CNN has to tell me.

4:49 pm, Oregon time
Geez. Two lousy states called so far on CNN. Whoopee.

I want instant results! And gratification! Call the damn thing for Obama. I want to go to our Tango class at 7:30. If Obama isn't declared president by that time, I'll be seriously distracted.

Of course, if you remember "The Tango Lesson" (movie), there's a scene where an Argentine couple is talking about Tango. "It's about life," says the wife. "And death," adds the husband. "It's about love," she says. "And hate," he chimes in.

So I guess I can express my death and hate feelings through dance, if Obama is doing badly. I'd rather the hour be filled with life and love, though.

6:35 pm, irrelevant part of the country time
Ohio goes for Obama. Florida looks like it's in the "D" bag. I'm going to be dancing with joy soon. Literally. Only (mild) problem: once again the West Coast will be a presidential election afterthought.

I took a look at Fox News, just to relish how the unfair and unbalanced anchors were dealing with an Obama victory. I saw one of them talking with Karl Rove about how the only way McCain could win now would be if a solid blue state flipped.

They agreed that if Oregon somehow went for McCain, they wouldn't be able to report it, because they'd be passed out on the floor from shock. Yes, won't happen. Obama will win my state by double digits, I can almost guarantee.

CNN's John King just said that it would take a miracle for McCain to win. Likely there's a lot of Christian fundamentalists praying for that right now.

Won't happen.

We'll go to the Marion County Democrats election party after the Tango class. Now the fun will be to see how well the Dems do in Oregon. We need to get rid of Sen. Gordon Smith. It's embarassing that blue Oregon has the only Republican senator on the West Coast.

McCain voters, please save our sanity

If you're thinking of voting for John McCain, consider this: you're running the risk of vastly increasing mental illness in this country. Mostly of the depressive variety, though I wouldn't rule out major psychotic breaks if your man wins next Tuesday.

So be compassionate. Vote your values, Christian or otherwise. Perform a selfless act. Help those in need.

Like, my wife and me. We were just talking about what it'd be like to spend the next four years watching Sarah Palin mangle the vice-presidency, while McCain dodders his own way along.

Laurel thought that she'd have to stop reading the newspaper, watching TV, and listening to the radio. Probably even that wouldn't be enough, because her friends would be keeping up with news about the McCain-Palin administration and couldn't help blurting out what's happening.

Thus a vote for McCain could end up producing a recluse who spends her days wandering around our house, muttering to herself. How did it happen... what went wrong... Oh Obama, where have you gone...

Sure, this isn't likely to happen. The odds are less than 3% at the moment. But this is how depressive insanity strikes: when people's guards are down and the future looks oh-so-rosy. Until, it isn't.

Since the core of McCain's support comes from conservative fundamentalist Christians, I'm asking those poised to vote for him to consider: What would Jesus do?

Wouldn't he give of himself to fulfill the needs of others? Wouldn't he lift up the poor, the lame, the infirm, the Obama supporters teetering on the edge of a mental breakdown?

Absolutely.

Jesus would say, "Brothers and sisters, support Barack even if your heart is with John. For he who surrenders his vote in the name of loving compassion shall be rewarded a hundredfold. Including getting your taxes reduced if you make under $250,000."

If Obama loses, which some say could only be due to one bad thing, my descent into madness likely would take a different turn from Laurel's.

I'd still immerse myself in the media. To assuage the pain of seeing Palin and her sidekick, some sort of numbing would be necessary. Alcoholism or drug addiction, probably. Maybe both, just to make sure that I don't feel the horror.

I'm trying to take some preventive measures -- hoping to inoculate myself against the 3% chance of McCain making it into the White House by reading "10 Reasons Why McCain Might Win." Most don't make sense, fortunately for my future mental health.

However, I'm begging potential McCain voters not to take any chances. Keep Obama-supporting Americans like me and my wife off of a depressive slide into a progressive black hole.

Vote for Barack. You may not be happy you did, but we sure will be. Remember: it's better to give than to receive.

Republicans depressed about an Obama win -- I feel your pain

With a week to go before the election, I'm having a burst of compassion for the many conservatives who are seriously depressed about the prospect of watching Barack Obama in the White House for the next four (or eight) years.

Believe me, I've been there. My wife too. We've felt your pain. In 2000. And again in 2004. So here's some advice from a progressive who didn't know if he could make it through a George Bush presidency:

You'll survive. When you wake up on November 5, the sun will still rise. Still, for a while you'll feel like there's nothing to live for, that the bottom has fallen out of your political life. You won't be able to understand how so many people voted for a second-rate candidate who, obviously, is going to drag this country down. Take a deep breath. Relax. Tell yourself: "this too shall pass."

That's what I did. And now it's happened. George Bush and John McCain are poised to pass out of the national awareness.

A new day is about to dawn, one where progressives dance and sing, while conservatives contemplate moving to a state with assisted suicide (that would be Oregon, where I live; but I'm sorry -- you have to be terminally ill to use the law, not just terminally depressed).

On cable news I've seen McCain supporters saying things like, "This country can't survive if Obama wins." I think to myself: My friends, we're on the same wavelength. You're just eight years behind my speaking the same words.

With a minor substitution: "Bush" for "Obama." I was wrong in 2000 and 2004, because the United States has been strong and resilient enough to make it through the mal-administraton of one of the worst presidents ever.

So Republicans, buck up.

I'm confident that Obama is going to be one of our best presidents. It's not going to take long for you to realize that your fears have been unfounded. And every time you see Joe Biden do something vice-presidential, be thankful that it isn't Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Yikes! That thought is so scary, I'm not sure what I'd do if it became reality.

Often progressives say, "I'd move to Canada." They may not mean it, but it makes them feel better to know that there's a way out of a national nightmare. There's a problem for conservatives, though: where do they go if Obama wins?

It isn't readily apparent what country is the equivalent of Canada for right-wingers. Fortunately, Chris Wilson of Slate has come up with some answers in "The Conservative's Canada: Where can Republicans threaten to move if Obama wins?"

Israel. Poland. The Cayman Islands. Or Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong. Australia and Ireland are other possibilities. Not as easy to get to as Canada, but each has some characteristics that would help sooth a conservative's Obama-stressed soul.

Personally, I like the idea in this article that disgruntled Republicans head north to Alaska, where they can soak up Palin's persona and pretend that she's V.P. rather than Governor.

(Another possibility: join Republicans for Obama and be happy the next four years.)

Obama doesn't spread my T-shirt wealth

I'm relieved! Barack Obama isn't a socialist. Here's the proof: me wearing an Obama-Biden t-shirt that arrived in the mail yesterday.

(A bonus proof -- that progressives have some smarts: another photo taken with my new MacBook in front of a mirror, which reflected the reflected words back to normal.)

I'd been worrying that the Obama campaign had decided to spread my t-shirt wealth with someone in a lower donation bracket, just as McCain has been saying he'd do with our taxes. Months ago I made a contribution to Obama after I'd gotten an email saying that if I donated now I'd get a "first edition" t-shirt.

My daughter got hers a long time ago. I figured the election would be over by the time mine came. So it was thrilling to open our mailbox and find a squeezable package.

Only problem is, I've inspected every corner of the t-shirt and can't find any mention of "first edition." Guess it won't be the collector's item that I'd hoped for. The label does, however, say "Made in USA" (been a long time since I've seen that on clothing) and sports a United States flag.

This is more proof: that Obama isn't anti-American, as a Republican congresswoman has claimed. Man, I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this t-shirt.

It's been a good week for Obama, as well as for my t-shirt drawer. A judge threw out  a ridiculous lawsuit by Philip Berg claiming that Obama isn't an American citizen. I heard Berg being interviewed on a right-wing talk show. He was convinced that the lawsuit was going to give the election to McCain.

So much for that loony plan. Berg could have saved himself some trouble by heading over to FactCheck and reading their take on the He's not a citizen! smear effort.

They've inspected Obama's original birth certificate and have posted photos of it, complete with a close-up of the raised seal testifying to its authenticity. None the less, delusional McCain supporters are still spreading the lie that Obama's birth certificate is missing.

Well, they're entitled to their fantasies. Which includes the notion that Obama is going to lose the election. (McCain has a 3% chance at the moment; even conservative stalwarts are jumping ship.)

No complacency, though! Vote for Obama! Donate to Obama! Volunteer for Obama!

I want to be sure that I get to wear my t-shirt to a victory party on November 4.

Palin is failin’ to help McCain

Oh, how sweet is the karmic delight! Everything that voters once found so right about Sarah Palin now is turning them off.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that Palin is people's biggest concern about voting for McCain.

Fifty-five percent of respondents say she's not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll. …In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light. …Now, Palin's qualifications to be president rank as voters' top concern about McCain's candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush's policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

Sweet. I'm turning Obama! Obama! cartwheels at this marvelous turn of events. Every day, it seems, there's a new reason to turn away from Palin.

This is a good summary of the sundry screw-up's and "can you believe it?" expressions on the face of American voters. I've also done my own cyberspace walk through the not-so-wonderful world of PalinLand today.

Front and center, of course, is her $150,000 Fashiongate scandal. That's what was spent in a single month to dress up Palin, who tries to claim that she's just an average hockey Mom.

Yeah, right. Her clothing budget in September was four times the median salary of an American plumber. Sarah, please say "elitist" while you look in the mirror.

If you're into fashion, it's entertaining to browse through some photos of what the $150,000 bought (about halfway down the page). She should win the expensive high-heeled shoe vote, for sure. Those high boots also are cool. And how adorable – her daughter carries a Louis Vuitton bag!

You also can see what $8,700 worth of makeup consultations  brought to Palin. (Excessive blush, in my utterly non-professional opinion.) And learn her favorite "hockey Mom" stores: Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue.

An LA Times fashion critic says

Voters must find it unfathomable for Palin, who has been presented as a woman "like us," to spend that kind of money on clothes in these difficult financial times, to see her speaking so passionately about Joe the Plumber while plumbing campaign coffers for Valentino jackets and pencil skirts. And yet, they've eaten it up, tittering on chat sites about Palin's Kawasaki eyeglass frames and her Naughty Monkey red peep-toe pumps.

… You also have to wonder how it feels, as a woman, to have everyone know that you really have been dressed up and trotted out like a beauty queen for the American public to wag their tongues at. Caribou Barbie indeed.

Well, at least she's giving answers befitting her beauty queen background. Palin still doesn't understand what a vice-president does, even though she thinks it'd be cool to be one. No, the VP isn't in charge of the Senate, Sarah.

And somehow she manages to find socialism lurking behind Obama's middle class tax cut, excoriating him for wanting to "spread the wealth," while sucking up redistributive income from the Alaska Permanent Fund – a massive transfer of wealth from oil company royalties to every non-felon Alaskan.

Yes, Palin presides over the People's Republic of Alaska. So she shouldn't be throwing socialist stones at Obama when she lives in such a glass house state of unearned wealth spreading.

Obama poised to whip McCain’s butt

McCain said he was going to whip Obama's "you know what" in the last debate. Wrong. He lost, big time. Just like he's going to lose the presidential election in a few weeks.

Yes, I realize that Obama is telling his supporters to act as if they're behind, rather than ahead.

That's good advice. And my wife is taking it to heart, in a general Democratic sense, since she's been phone-banking away the past couple of days – making calls for Oregon candidates, plus Obama.

Here's a good sign: Laurel told me that after Colin Powell enthusiastically endorsed Obama yesterday, she found that more people were willing to talk with her about why they should support Obama.

We watched Powell's Meet the Press appearance and came away much impressed. Compared to McCain, Palin, and other flyweights, he's a thoughtful Republican with gravitas and substance.

I don't see how any independent voter could listen to Colin Powell and not say to him- or herself, "Obama's my man." Judge for yourself.

Currently FiveThirtyEight judges that Obama has a 93% chance of becoming president. Pollster has him with almost as big an electoral vote lead. Gallup shows Obama up 11% with registered voters, and 9% with an expanded set of likely voters. Obama also leads by 9% in Ohio, an important swing state.

McCain and Palin's only hope is that Americans are idiots. Good luck with that. They're trying to pin a Socialist! label on Obama, but that's not going to fly. After eight years of Bush, people have developed refined bullshit detecting skills.

Heck, real socialists say that Obama isn't one of them. As the story points out:

"Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."

McCain shows his economic ignorance by equating Obama's "share the wealth" comment with socialism. He doesn't realize that a progressive tax system, where people who make more money pay at a higher rate, is designed to share the wealth.

What is social security? Sharing the wealth. What is Medicare, Medicaid, low cost student loans, and McCain's own health care plan (along with Obama's, naturally)? Sharing the wealth.

What would be the point of government social programs if they left people needing help in exactly the same economic position, because, god forbid, some money flowed from the more fortunate to the less fortunate?

Isn't that what love is? Giving. It's bizarre that taxaphobic conservatives have made sharing one's wealth into something wrong rather than oh-so-right.

That's one reason, among many, why this country needs Obama so badly. Come November 5, a new day dawns.

Love is … paying taxes

A month ago Joe Biden was unfairly bashed by Republicans for saying that those making over $250,000 a year should view paying more taxes as patriotic.

He was right, but didn't go far enough. Everybody should see paying taxes as patriotic.

It's so obvious. Where the heck does the money come from for government funding of our military, roads, public schools, scientific research, Medicare, Social Security, and the other programs that keep our country strong?

Taxes, almost entirely.

So I don't understand the conservative notion that not paying taxes is a badge of honor. The way I see it, it's a mark of me-me-me selfishness.

Barack Obama wants middle class people to get a tax cut. Those making over $250,000 a year, like the temporarily famous Joe the Plumber (if his business dream ever becomes reality) would see their marginal tax rate rise from 36% to 39%.

Great idea.

Say Joe made $300,000. He'd pay 3% more on the $50,000 over $250,000. That's $1,500, ½ of 1 percent of Joe's total income, which would go to help pay for the pressing needs facing our country.

He should love to fork out a little extra, since he can afford it. And I wish Obama would use that very word more often when talking about taxes:

Love. We often say, "It's better to give than to receive." Isn't that the essence of love, giving of yourself?

Yet when it comes to giving to people less fortunate than us through taxation, many resist – wanting to keep their money for themselves, figuring, I guess, that getting another flat screen TV is a higher social value than improving the health of low income children.

Today McCain and Palin basically said that Obama is a socialist for wanting the rich to pay a little more in taxes. Well, if that's true, then Ronald Reagan was a socialist. Also, George H.W. Bush.

It's pitiful to see the McCain-Palin campaign reduced to name-calling. The further they sink in the polls, the more desperate they become to pull Obama down.

They haven't realized yet (but they will on election day) that voters are hungry for honest positive talk about how the United States can bounce back from the current financial crisis.

Obama is saying that McCain is "out of touch." In Missouri 100,000 people agreed with him, showing that love and patriotism trumps name-calling.

“Joe the Plumber” story springs some leaks

Last night's presidential debate featured many mentions of Joe, the plumber – a guy who came to a campaign rally and talked to Obama about his concern that raising taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year would affect his ability to buy a plumbing business.

Let's take a closer look at Joe. I'm confident that there's more to learn about him, but here's a good start.

First, if you watch the video of Joe's conversation with Obama you'll see Obama explain how his tax plan is good for small businesses.

Very few clear $250,000 or more, so raising the marginal tax rate at that level to 39% (from 36%) isn't a big deal. Further, Obama points out that if his plan had been in effect, with his current income Joe would have been paying less taxes, allowing him to save up money to buy the plumbing business more quickly.

Second, the notion that someone bringing home $250,000 a year is an "average Joe" is ridiculous. If he's making that much profit, he's far from a typical small business owner. As Joe Biden said:

"John [McCain] continues to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber," Biden said on NBC's "Today" show. "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year."

"The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year."

Yes, the average wage for plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters in the United States in 2007 was $47,350.

Third, Joe the Plumber isn't exactly a regular guy in other respects. Let's count some ways.

(1) He doesn't have a plumbing license, nor does his employer, even though the county where he lives requires one.

(2) He's behind on his tax bill, owing the state of Ohio $1,182 in personal income taxes.

(3) He had reporters at his house during the debate, leading to questions that Joe was a Republican plant (he seems to be a registered Republican).

So Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher) doesn't strike me as an unwashed voter who just happened to feel like asking Obama a question about taxes.

My bet is that as more is learned about Joe, we're going to find some connections between him and the McCain campaign. Desperation breeds dirty tricks, and McCain is certainly desperate.

[Update: Blue Oregon has a good "Lessons from Joe the Plumber" post. More strangeness revealed.]

Developers seek to rule Sisters (Oregon)

Sisters is one of central Oregon's special places.

Few towns in the country have managed to fend off ugly strip mall commercialism so well. Sisters is frontier-themed, with a friendly down home artistic charm that keeps visitors coming back again and again.

We know Sisters well, since we're part owners of a cabin in Camp Sherman, about fifteen minutes away.

So it's been disturbing to learn that pro-development forces are trying to stack the five member Sisters City Council with three men who have close ties to the building industry. All around town you see billboards with their names, since they're running as a cabal.

A Bend Bulletin editorial lays out the basic issue in the upcoming City Council election:

The city of Sisters may face many challenges, but the divide in the race for City Council is over economic development. Five candidates are running. The three top vote-getters will join the council. And the five candidates are split into two factions about the city's approach to development.

Councilman Lon Kellstrom, business owner Pat Thompson and Jerry Bogart, the president of Steelhead Construction Services, are running together. They are convinced that city government is doing less than it should to encourage business. The trio wants a change in attitude to start at the top. And they want the city to take the lead role in recruiting more business into Sisters.

Here's our plea to Sisters voters: don't vote for these guys! Be smart. Realize how easy it'd be to lose what you've got, and what that would mean to your community.

People aren't eager to visit, live, work, or form a business in Sisters because it's like every other town. It's your uniqueness, and yes, quirkiness, that's the key to your long-term success.

Learn from the financial meltdown that's devastated this country. Greed and over-development pads the pockets of a few well-heeled fat cats, but it screws the average citizen.

I don't know all the details of the Sisters City Council election, but my wife and I are familiar enough with land use issues in our home town, Salem, to understand what letter writers to the Sisters Nugget (a weekly) are justifiably concerned about.

Some samples (selected from here, here, here, and here):

To the Editor:

It would seem wise at this time for the Sister's City Council to consider putting a building moratorium on future development until the current mess is cleared up and only consider those types of projects that are appropriate for retaining the Western theme and are within the ability of current services, ie. traffic considerations, sewer, water, etc.

The one that comes to mind is the Cyrus family's idea for a new destination resort. Sisters needs that like a hole in the head.

One reason folks like to visit Sisters is it's not like Eagle Crest or the surrounding Bend area. It's one of the last bastions of identifiable motifs in Central Oregon.

When people come to Sisters to visit a small Western style community, that's what they, for the most part, get.

Jeff Miller
-----------------------------------------
To the Editor:

In his letter to the editor published last week in support of city council candidates Kellstrom, Bogart and Thompson, Grady Brown points out that building volume is dictated by market forces, not the city council. 

True enough. But what Mr. Brown doesn't point out is that the policy decisions that control how, where and when Sisters will grow, such as the location of the Urban Growth Boundary and the make-up of the planning commission, are made by the city council.

One of the candidates running for city council - Pat Thompson - owns an interest in a large tract of land on the east end of town that is just outside the UGB. Several landowners who have interests in large tracts on both ends of town that lie outside the UGB have made donations to the PAC that is supporting the Kellstrom, Bogart and Thompson campaigns.

Time and again the citizens of Sisters have said that maintaining livability of the community is one of their most pressing concerns. Setting the policies that directly impact the livability of Sisters - including how, when and where Sisters grows and expands, requires taking into account the best interests of the entire community. 

Brad Boyd has a long and successful track record of putting city and community interests first. Wendy Holzmann has worked tirelessly on numerous commissions and committees to maintain the livability of the city. A vote for them is a vote for balancing the interests of the whole community.

Doug Hancock
------------------------------------------
To the Editor:

The election of mayor and council members is as important to the greater Sisters area as it is to the city. The historic Western character of the town, the area's fantastic natural resources and the health of the environment are what attract both new business and visitors.

Let's not shoot the goose that laid the golden egg!

Brad Boyd has proven that he is a champion for the public interest within the City of Sisters and the surrounding area. His support for improvements in Whychus Creek, his leadership on the Sisters Trail System and his opposition to sprawl development, including destination resorts in the Metolius and Whychus basins, are all important to maintaining and improving our quality of life.

We need to re-elect Brad Boyd and not let the city be taken over by moneyed interests, represented by the Developer Three signage around town.

Linda Davis
------------------------------------------
To the Editor:

This last issue of The Nugget Newspaper contained three large advertisements supporting the election of Lon Kelstrom, Pat Thompson and Jerry Bogart for Sisters City Council.

All three ads say "Authorized and paid for by Citizens for Sisters." In the State of Oregon Elections Division database you find out that the contributors and members of the Citizens for Sisters PAC are Bill Willitts, Chuck Hoyt, Steve Rodgers, Jim Bell and Curt Kallberg.  Eric Dolson is the treasurer and appears to be managing the campaign.

Contributions from the list of players listed above are nearly $5,000. Talk about "buying" an election! This is big money politics in Sisters. 

What's the agenda? What are the special interests that are trying to take over the Sisters City Council? As a starting point, this group of citizens are builders, developers and land owners, and the three candidates they support are builders, developers and land owners.

It is not too hard to figure the rest.

Ed Protas

So, please, Sisterians, vote for current mayor Brad Boyd and citizen activist Wendy Holzman. After reading the candidates' views about how Sisters should develop, I don't see how anyone who loves this town as it is could vote for the three "pave it over" guys.

"The most effective economic development is to maintain the atmosphere and quality of life that makes this a great place to live," Boyd said. "We're never going to be the low-cost option."

Holzman said that she accepts that Sisters will grow and change, but she thinks citizens want to go easy on the throttle.

"People want it to be change that enhances and doesn't detract from what we already have," she said.

Amen to that.

Troopergate report says Sarah Palin violated state law

Thanks to the Anchorage Daily News Troopergate blog, I just learned that the legislative committee reviewing the Branchflower report has released it to the public.

The first finding says:

For reasons explained in Section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch ethics act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

"The Legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

You can read the other findings, which aren't as damning, by downloading the (large) PDF file of the public report.
Download troopergate_report.pdf

Want another reason, among many, not to vote for Palin and McCain? Here you are. She violated the public trust.

[Update: CNN says Palin abused her power but broke no laws. Well, the finding above says she violated an Alaska Statute, which sure sounds to me like she broke a law. The New York Times says she unlawfully abused her authority. I'll go with the Times.]

Sarah Palin’s alleged affair and fake pregnancy

There's something deliciously karma'ish in the ongoing rumors that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner, Brad Hanson, and/or isn't really the mother of Trig Palin, born last April.

Sarah Palin is notoriously loose with facts. Her speech at the Republican National Convention was filled with untruths, and she got quite a bit wrong at last night's debate with Joe Biden.

So she doesn't have much room for complaining about allegations which have more basis than some of the whoppers the McCain – Palin campaign has been telling about Barack Obama.

What goes around comes around to deceptive politicians.

The National Enquirer is staying on the affair story. I picked up a copy of the October 6 issue a few days ago and learned the newest juicy details. They were lacking in the initial Enquirer report, but now have been fleshed out considerably.

--"Sources tell the Enquirer it's [the affair] now an open secret among close family members of Hanson's wife Carolyn."

--"Burdett [former brother-in-law of Carolyn Hanson's brother] passed a rigorous polygraph test regarding his claims about Palin and Hanson."

--"And as rumors of the affair blazed across Internet blogs [wow, I'm mentioned in the Enquirer!],a source close to Carolyn Hanson claimed she confirmed the liaison."

--"Despite that [denial by Hanson], multiple sources and now the three family members have told The Enquirer that Hanson and Sarah did have an affair and that it is being covered up."

As if we needed more proof, my wife pointed out that Brad Hanson looks a lot like Todd Palin, down to the facial hair. That settles it.

OK, now that we've determined that Sarah Palin had an affair, let's move on to her fake pregnancy.

I'm not up on this to the same degree, mostly because I haven't been able to research the subject by browsing through tabloids in the supermarket checkout line.

However, Portland blogger Jack Bogdanski continues to pursue the story, asking "Is Bristol Palin really pregnant?"

Conspiracy theories concerning the birth of Trig Palin have been around since Palin was chosen by McCain as his V.P. nominee. If Trig really is Bristol Palin's child (Sarah's daughter), then it wouldn't be possible for Bristol to have gotten pregnant when it's claimed she did.

To me it seems unlikely that Palin faked her pregnancy in order to cover up her daughter's illegitimate birth. You can decide for yourself, though, with the help of some folks who have delved into this in considerable detail:

Sarah Palin's lies
Top Ten Clues in the "Who Is Trig's Mother?" Mystery
Who is Trig Palin's Mother?
Sarah Palin's Pregnancy Decision Map

(don't confuse the latter with the Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart, though each show a similar confused thought process)

McCain caused a lot of pain today

Largely because of John McCain, a huge number of Americans are considerably poorer today. Like, me.

My wife and I have balanced investments in stocks and bonds, so we aren't down as much as the 7% to 9% drop in the equity markets. Still, we've lost a bunch of money.

And if the House Republicans don't get their act together soon, putting the country before politics, it's likely that even more financial blood will be on their hands.

Those Republicans voted against the bailout by more than 2 to 1. McCain said at last week's debate that he likely would vote for the bailout. He made a big deal out of coming to Washington to show what a great leader he is.

Yet he couldn't bring along members of his own party, and he sat mute during the White House meeting on the bailout proposal.

Pretty crappy leadership.

The differing reactions of Obama and McCain to the House vote say a lot about what sort of president each would be. Obama called for calm and patience, while McCain made partisan attacks.

This is just what we saw at the first presidential debate: Obama's firm crispness, McCain's sarcastic snippiness.

Economist Paul Krugman wrote about the readiness of the two men to take a 3 am economic crisis call.

So what do we know about the readiness of the two men most likely to end up taking that call? Well, Barack Obama seems well informed and sensible about matters economic and financial. John McCain, on the other hand, scares me.

Krugman describes how McCain has flipped and flopped his way to his current whatever non-stand on the bailout bill.

The real revelation of the last few weeks, however, has been just how erratic Mr. McCain's views on economics are. At any given moment, he seems to have very strong opinions — but a few days later, he goes off in a completely different direction.

Early on, Obama laid out principles that the bailout plan should adhere to. I haven't seen anything like that from McCain. He just meanders in the direction that seems most apt to score political points for him and shore up his faltering poll numbers.

I don't like losing money. But I can get some satisfaction from the fact that today's historic drop in the Dow shows up the incompetence of McCain and his Republican cronies in the House.

The day's loss knocked out approximately $1.2 trillion in market value, the first post-$1 trillion day ever, according to a drop in the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, the broadest measure of the stock market.

The bailout price is $700 billion, at most (probably much less, since the government would recoup a good share of the cost when the housing market rebounds).

McCain admits that he doesn't know much about economics. His failed leadership on the bailout plan demonstrates this.

Memo to Senator McCain: $1.2 trillion is more than $700 billion.

[Update: It took me a while to understand Rep. Barney Frank's comment about today's bailout vote being "one of the truly great coincidences in the history of numerology."

But now I see what he meant about "the number of deeply offended Republicans who put feeling over country turned out to be exactly the number you would need to reverse the vote."

Frank is referring to the absurd GOP claim that Nancy Pelosi's floor speech before the vote, where she properly castigated eight years of Bushonomics, caused the bailout plan to fail.

Cleverly (almost too clever for me), Frank points out that it would indeed be a remarkable coincidence if the number of Republicans offended by Pelosi's remarks was exactly the margin by which the plan was defeated. That's what would need to have happened to be able to pin the blame, however loosely, on Pelosi.]

Tina Fey nails Sarah Palin again

I love it. And I'm scared by it.

With eerie accuracy, Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey shows us what a Palin vice-presidency would be like.

Yikes! Too real!

Message: vote Obama-Biden.

No debate: Obama won the debate

There's been endless post-game discussion about who won last night's presidential debate, most of it meaningless.

Wow, no big surprise. Republican spinmeisters claim that McCain kicked Obama's butt, while their Democratic counterparts spin the opposite way.

Much more persuasive is what polls and focus groups say. Almost universally, Obama won. And on McCain's home field, foreign policy – which was the focus of the debate.

Daily Kos has a good summary of polling results. Conclusion:

The focus groups picked up soft, but important data on the debate, and the snap polls show an Obama win. Focus groups pick up the "likeability" piece, which polls do not. Obama won that going away.

A CBS News poll had Obama winning 39-24, with 37 percent calling it a draw. Significantly, more independent voters saw Obama as the winner.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll had Obama on top 51-38. He even had an edge on national security, supposedly McCain's strength.

FiveThirtyEight analyzes why voters thought Obama won.

McCain's essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience -- is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.

MediaCurves found that independents gave Obama higher marks on every issue area: financial recovery plan, economic plans, government spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, likelihood of another 9-11 attack, and who won the debate.

Today's Gallup Daily poll has Obama up nationally 49% to 45%. At the moment FiveThirtyEight gives him a 79% chance of becoming president.

It'll be interesting to see how these numbers change over the next week. My prediction: Obama is going to increase his lead.

And after Sarah Palin embarrasses herself next Thursday in the vice-presidential debate, Obama and Biden are going to move further ahead.

McCain screws up bailout plan

Having just watched some interviews on CNN about what went on in the White House "summit" meeting this afternoon, it seems clear that John McCain has screwed things up big-time with his political grandstanding.

Hopefully voters will remember this come November. Once again, McCain showed that he's a Me First, Country Second guy.

Rather than letting negotiations over the financial bailout plan proceed without interjection of presidential politics, McCain swooped into Washington at the last minute in an obvious attempt to save his campaign – not the national economy.

This morning, lawmakers seemed to be near a deal on the bailout. Now, it's being reported that House Republicans threw a monkey wrench into the White House meeting by coming up with an alternative plan linked to John McCain.

Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said that when McCain spoke at the meeting Dodd couldn't understand what he was saying, what he was for and against. So much for the Straight Talk express.

Earlier in the day Dodd and his House colleague, Barney Frank, announced that there was bipartisan agreement on a set of principles for the bailout. But after McCain shows up, the agreement evaporates.

I agree with Paul Begala, a CNN analyst. He suspects that House Republicans are gumming up the bailout works so McCain can pretend to unstick them in the next few days. Potentially this could allow McCain to chicken out of tomorrow's presidential debate, untruthfully claiming that he's needed in Washington to broker a deal.

Actually, of course, McCain is a big reason why House Republicans aren't supporting the otherwise bipartisan bailout. Our economy is being put at further risk in a vain attempt to shore up McCain's sinking poll numbers.

I'm not a big fan of the bailout. But something needs to be done, and the changes being proposed to Bush's original plan make it more palatable. I'm also open to the possibility that House Republicans have some good ideas that need to also be considered.

For example, CNN reported that one notion is to use private funds, rather than public, for the bailout. After all, supposedly there's a good chance that eventually the distressed assets to be bought up will be worth more than what'll be paid for them.

If that's the case, why not make it possible for private investors to bet on that possibility, rather than putting taxpayer dollars at risk?

What irks me is that McCain isn't showing any genuine leadership on this issue. He's just trying to score some political points with the aid of House Republicans, who likely will balk at a deal for another day or two until they emerge from a meeting with McCain and proclaim "What a great leader! He brought us on board!"

This newest McCain fiasco serves to demonstrate that he'd be a disastrous president. George Will, a conservative, is sour on McCain:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

… Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

No. That's why we've got to elect Barack Obama.

Making sense of the $700 billion bailout

I can balance our checkbook. And that's how I like it: balanced. Where I know how much money we have, and that amount isn't less than the checks we've written.

Pretty simple. But somehow all those geniuses on Wall Street and in government can't figure out how to do the same thing.

They're used to spending more than they have. Under George Bush, we've had massive federal budget deficits. Not surprisingly, this charge it attitude has been reflected in the financial markets, where "take the money today and don't worry about tomorrow" has been the watchword.

This week's TIME magazine explains the monetary madness clearly in "The Price of Greed: How Financial Madness Overtook Wall Street."

But it doesn't pinpoint who is at the root of the problem. Recently my daughter told me about an article her Republican friends are throwing in her face. It's by Republican strategist Michael Reagan, and claims that Democrats are to blame.

Not true, according to a much more believable Daily Kos post, "Three Times is Enemy Action."

Yes, some Democrats were complicit in fostering deregulation during the Clinton years. The impetus for letting greed run wild, though, came from Republicans like Phil Gramm, one of John McCain's policy advisors.

So here we are, fellow American taxpayers, being asked to trade "cash for trash," as Paul Krugman puts it.

Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson's $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system "cash for trash." Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.

There's justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers' money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn't make sense.

It sure doesn't.

A local Salem columnist got it right today when he said that Bush's proposed bailout privatizes profits and socializes risks. Meaning, all those financial types who screwed up get to keep their bonuses and high-paid jobs, while the bad mortgages and other debt they embraced gets foisted off on the public.

I've asked Bush for my own bailout, since I've made plenty of screwups with my money over the years. So did this Business Week guy in "Dude, where's my bailout?"

Fortunately, there's some pushback. It's obvious, and deeply rankling, that Bush is trying to play his usual B.S. game of scaring us silly (Saddam! Mushroom cloud!) in order to get a blank check for whatever crazy scheme he wants Congress to buy off on.

CNN has a poll on its home page that asks whether people agree with the $700 billion bailout. So far 208,000 votes have been cast, 68% (including mine) saying "no."A Washington Post story finds almost universal opposition among ordinary folks to Bush's rewarding irresponsibility.  Americans are mad as hell.

Senate Democrats seem to be on the right track. They want the public to have an ownership stake in the companies that are being bailed out by taxpayer dollars.

Sure, why not? Then we can fire the idiots who got us into this mess, cancel their severance packages, and get some real social benefits out of the socialization of the financial sector.  Since we're headed toward becoming the United States of France, let's go all the way and really embrace the goodies sound public policies can bring us.

Like, a decent health care system. It's crazy that Bush has resisted government getting more involved in assuring that Americans have access to affordable health care, but he's willing to spend hundreds of billions in a giveaway to Wall Street.

Obama, smartly, is starting to hammer away on the connection between health care and the Bush-McCain love of financial deregulation.

If you think the mortgage market is screwed up after eight years of  Bush's whatever attitude, imagine what will happen if McCain gets to carry out his plan to bring the same laissez faire approach to the nation's health care system.

Any bailout plan has to be structured around a central core of outrage. The screw-ups have to get screwed, or they'll just keep on screwing up – knowing that there's no downside to failure if you're part of a big financial institution.

In an interview economist Dean Baker tells it like it is.

Well, we've been knowing since six years. The basic story was, we had a housing bubble, which, again, these people are supposed to be smart. They're paid tens of millions of dollars. They should have recognized the housing bubble. They should have recognized that house prices would fall, as they have been. And what that meant was, you made a loan on a house for $250,000, $300,000, $400,000, that house price was likely to fall. So if you did that with zero down, as many of them did, plus having mortgages, you know, the predatory mortgages, the subprime mortgages that have got them in particular trouble, these were guaranteed to go bad in many cases.

They acted as though house prices would just keep going up forever, and they could just keep, you know, going along these lines. They leveraged themselves to the hilt. The investment banks, like Lehman and Bear Stearns, leveraged themselves to a ratio of thirty-to-one. In other words, if they had $10 billion in capital, they had loans on the order of $300 billion. I mean, this was just asking for disaster.

And, you know, again, it did collapse. It was totally predictable it would collapse. You know, I didn't know when, didn't know exactly who, but it was totally predictable. And now they're running to us and asking us for handouts. Think of what we do to welfare people, when they—you know, everything they have to go through to get, you know, a $500-a-month check, and these people want billions, no questions asked. Unbelievable.

Yes. Unbelievable.

Dear Pres. Bush, I need a bailout too

Dear President Bush,

I've been reading about how you want Congress to bail out financial firms that made some wrong choices. This is wonderful news.

Because I assume you'll also be open to bailing me out of some stupid things I've done in my life. Next week you want Congress to fork over $700 billion or so of taxpayer dollars to "buy up toxic mortgage-related securities."

I'm pleased to inform you that for only a pittance more you can buy up some additional toxic monetary decisions. This would do a lot to get an important sector of the economy back on track.

Namely, the part centered on me – which, from my perspective, looks pretty damn crucial.

Since your $700 billion bailout plan is just three pages long, I don't like I need to provide much documentation for my own proposal.

The following should be sufficient. The IRS has my address. I'll be watching our mailbox for the Treasury check.

My wife may be sending in her own bailout request, so be sure to allow for this when you raise the nation's debt ceiling to $11.315 trillion. I'd think that $11.31500000000000001 trillion should be adequate.

Brian Hines' toxic monetary decision bailout request:

-- buying that Karmann Ghia back in the 70s. Looked cool but ran like shit. Cost me a lot of time and money to keep fixing it. $3,000

-- not finishing my Ph.D. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Could have earned much more over the years with it though. $200,000

-- highlighting first pages of books before I'd read much of them. That's kept me from selling many boring books at used book stores when the buyer saw my yellow marks. $75

-- failing to buy and hold Microsoft, Apple, and Google stock back when they were super cheap and just getting off the ground. $1,400,000

-- thinking that because a bag of dog treats said the cheese flavor had been taste-tested with many breeds, the family pet would like them. Turned out to be a total waste. $6

Total: $1,603,081

This is, of course, just a smattering of the stupid financial decisions I've made in my life. But I agree with Joe Biden that paying taxes is patriotic.

Since I'm not asking to be bailed out of so many wrong-headed monetary moves, thereby foregoing a substantial amount of Treasury income, this comes to the same thing as a patriotic tax increase.

Country first! That's my motto.

I look forward to finding this request included in a forthcoming legislative proposal. I don't consider it an earmark, but rather a sensible recognition that crucial sectors of our economy have to be insulated from the consequences of poor choices.

In this regard, I stand with Barack Obama (and likely a majority of the Democratic Congress that will need to approve your proposal). "Main Street" needs to be helped along with Wall Street.

Mainly, I'm interested in helping the address on our street where we live. Hope you agree.

Sincerely,
Brian Hines

McCain – Palin supporters, help me out

I'm for Obama and Biden. So is my wife. As is my daughter. Along with just about everybody else I know.

So it's difficult for me to understand how the other side thinks. Being a warm and fuzzy progressive, I thought I'd reach out in this post and try to touch some McCain – Palin supporters.

What leads you to believe that the Republican ticket is best for the United States? Which policies favored by McCain, and not by Obama, would get this country back on track?

Please, be reality-based. Your opinions need to be backed up by facts.

For example, McCain keeps saying that Obama wants to raise taxes on most Americans. That isn't true. His tax plan would lower taxes on lower and middle income people more than McCain's plan would. The lies being spread about Obama's tax policies are just that: lies.

I can understand why someone would simply like McCain more than Obama. "Like" is a subjective preference. I'd never try to talk someone out of liking something, so long as it didn't hurt other people.

But here's how I see this election: this country is at a crossroads. Sure, that's said every four years at presidential election time. But it seems more true this time around.

Huge investment firms are going under. Today the stock market dropped more than 500 points. Yet McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. I don't see how someone with this attitude will be able to fix our economic problems.

Help me out, McCain supporters. Tell me how more tax cuts for the wealthy and continuing massive budget deficits are going to turn things around.

Recently Jon Stewart said on his The Daily Show something like, "So the only people who can fix the problems caused by eight years of a Republican president, and six out of eight years of Republicans controlling Congress, are…Republicans?"

Again, I don't get it. Where's the evidence that McCain and Palin, who are strong supporters of almost every George Bush policy, are going to be independent mavericks?

There's a lot I don't like about McCain and Palin. McCain is running a dishonorable, sleazy campaign. He got nailed in an Obama ad today for surrendering his honor in order to try to win the presidency.

Palin keeps repeating her Bridge to Nowhere lie, even after the truth has come out that she favored the bridge and continues to seek hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for Alaska. And she's for killing wolves from airplanes, a despicable act that my animal-loving soul abhors.

So it'd be tough for me to change my mind and vote for McCain and Palin. I just don't see any good reasons to do so. And neither do most of the people that I talk to.

But who knows? Maybe someone will leave a comment to this post that offers up a cogent, fact-based, persuasive reason why they should lead this country.

I'm waiting.

McCain surrenders his honor

It's a sad turn of events. John McCain used to be all about honor and country. Now he's all about me, me, me – having demonstrated that he's willing to lie his way to gain the presidency.

I've lost all respect for the guy. As should the voters.

Fortunately, people are starting to wake up from the dream of "McCain, independent maverick." Alarm clocks are buzzing all over the place.

"McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions" The New York Times nails him:

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama's record and positions.

"John McCain's ads are LIES. Here's the video proof." A You Tube video documents his falsities:

"Why McCain is going so negative, so often" Jonathan Martin explains:

McCain's tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical.. McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.

"The two faces of John McCain" Old one: proud warrior. New one: lying politician.

And that is the contradiction now confronted by the national press corps, whose members desperately wish to believe in the old McCain they adored rather than the new McCain who nauseates them. Some pretend that what they see is not really happening, or doesn't matter; others wrinkle their noses but cannot quite muster indignation; and a few, very few, realize that the campaign is being debased by the man who once denounced this ugly style of politics and promised reform.

"Obama aide: McCain campaign 'sleaziest' in modern history" That's for sure. Tell it like it is.

"We will take no lectures from John McCain, who is cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "His discredited ads with disgusting lies are running all over the country today. He runs a campaign not worthy of the office his is seeking."

"McCain wrong on Palin earmarks" The Los Angeles Times does some fact-checking and lie exposing.

John McCain got it wrong Friday when he asserted that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had not requested any earmarks, the spending directives lawmakers insert in spending bills that McCain has vowed to eliminate. Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails.

After eight years of George Bush, Americans are tired of being lied to. Yet here comes John McCain, doing more of the same.

What I find amazing is that this is the same John McCain who was so fond of claiming (falsely) that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war in order to win an election. And now McCain is showing that he is willing to lose his honor in order to win the presidency.

There's only one thing for both Obama and voters to do: release some righteous rage. Refuse to play Karl Rove's games again. Stand up for truth, justice, and the American way.

Not John McCain's lying way.

Cheer up: new poll shows Obama lead

It's been kind of a dispiriting week for progressives, having to watch the polls move in McCain's direction. But here's some good news: a new Daily Kos-sponsored tracking poll that has Obama ahead 47% to 45%.

Indeed, it feels like the post convention McCain momentum is running down. After all, you can only lie for so long until the bad karma catches up. And the non-critical national media are starting to wake up, thankfully.

It'll be interesting to see how Sarah Palin performs when she isn't simply reading her stump speech over and over.

Pretty amazing, really. Here's this supposed model of feminist independence standing next to McCain like a robot, reciting what she's been told to say, refusing to answer questions (until tonight, when ABC has an interview with her).

This is showing American voters how ill-prepared she is. McCain claims she's ready to take over as president, but his campaign doesn't think she's even ready for a press conference.

The "internal" numbers in the Daily Kos poll are encouraging. Take a look. Obama is leading McCain by four to eighteen points in every part of the country but the south. Good luck on winning a national election with that sort of support.

Women favor Obama by nine points. And I suspect that gap will only grow as they learn about McCain's and Palin's anti-choice positions.

Bottom line: the sky isn't falling, Obama supporters. He and Biden are poised for a bounce-back.

Obama, you need to get fired up

Today I was planning to rant about McCain's Sarah Palin lies – since she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it – but realized that actually I'm more pissed off at Obama.

So this rant's for you, Barack.

First off, you're my man. That's why it hurts so much to see you acting like a weenie. It killed me to watch you interviewed on MSNBC yesterday, whiffing the softball questions Keith Olbermann threw at you. Such as:

OLBERMANN:  And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party.

You said that they're not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it's about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word "lie" about these things?

OBAMA:  Well, look, we have been very clear about the fact that this argument John McCain and Sarah Palin are making, that they are agents of change, just won't fly.  It defies their history and their background.  And we saw it in the convention that they wouldn't talk about the basic issues that are really going to make a difference in the lives of middle class families.

So you know, I'm happy to have legitimate policy debates with them on where we want to take health care, what we want to do about energy, what we want to do about education, what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.

But you know, for them to run an ad that basically doesn't present an accurate record of their positions on issues I think should raise some questions about how they would approach an administration.

Jesus! Just say, "Yes, McCain and Palin are lying. That's unfortunate. The American people deserve better."

Over on the Huffington Post, Drew Westen does a good job analyzing what the Obama campaign is doing wrong. In short, lots. This is right on:

But McCain shouldn't have gotten a 10-point bump from his uncivil convention, and this election shouldn't be close. What happened in one short week was both completely predictable and completely avoidable. Just hours after a Democratic Convention that reignited Democratic enthusiasm and started to swing those swing voters who just weren't sure about Obama, the Obama campaign had forgotten everything it should have learned from its success of Denver--most importantly that you never drop your gloves, and that you never let the other side control the narratives--and had returned to the same failed strategies that gave us Presidents Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, strategies Democratic consultants have passed from generation to generation like a family heirloom laced with hemlock.

It's starting to drive me nuts, this be nice strategy that doesn't work against Republican toughness. Voters don't want a smiley-face president. Obama has to show that he's got the fire in his belly to take this country in a new direction and to face up to foreign policy challenges.

Except for flashes during his Mile High stadium speech, I haven't seen this from Obama. Both he and Biden keep talking about how much they respect McCain, without getting the same in return.

Last week I saw Biden on CNN, speaking live at a campaign event. Here's a chance for him to make the most of a few minutes of air time on a major cable news channel. And he blows it.

Speaking extemporaneously, he starts talking about how he and McCain are such good friends. Not just casual Senate buddies, but really good friends. Then he tells a warm and fuzzy story about travelling to Greece, or somewhere, with McCain.

Eventually he gets around to talking about how even though McCain is a great guy, his policies suck. By this time all of Biden's sweet talking about the Republican candidate has diluted his differences with him.

Once again, just like in 2004, the Democrats are assuming that being right on the issues will make up for turning the other cheek on baseless Rove'ian attacks. Well, it didn't work for Kerry, and it won't work for Obama.

Obama frequently says, "The Republicans can't govern, but they sure know how to run a campaign." Well dude, if you admire their campaigning ability so much (as you should), why can't you learn from them?

I'm not quite at worried as Adam McKay, who says "We're Gonna Frickin' Lose this Thing." But it seriously bothers me to see Obama acting so calm and collected while McCain and Palin roast him.

Richard Cohen asks, "Too cool to fight?"

It is true that on the stump, Obama goes on the attack. But those are fragments -- maybe 15 seconds on the evening news. It is with extended interviews, such as the Sunday shows, that we get to visit with the man -- and that man, for all his splendid virtues, seems to lack fight. Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man or maybe he's just too cool to ever get hot, but the end result is that we have little insight into his passions: What, above all, does he care about? The answer, at least to the Sunday TV viewer, was nothing much.

Show us, Barack. Show us what you care about, and how much you're willing to fight for this country.

Right now it looks like you and Biden are willing to hand McCain and Palin the keys to the White House, preferring to say that you didn't descend to their level rather than ascend to the leadership the United States needs.

Not acceptable. Not at all. You can keep sending me your almost-daily requests for more money. But until I see some fire from your campaign, my Visa card is staying in my wallet.

Enquirer story on Palin affair lacks juicy details

Hey, I just spent $3.49 on a copy of the September 15 National Enquirer so you don't have to. I was curious if the print story had more details about Sarah Palin's alleged affair.

Here's what it says on this subject (leaving out other salacious gossip about her daughter's pregnancy and such):

Sarah Palin is hoping to unite America as John McCain's vice president, but her own family is divided in a vicious war that is exposing her darkest secrets and threatens to destroy her political career.

One of the incredible charges that has emerged from the family feud is that the Alaska governor had an affair with her husband's business partner.

…Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.

"Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy," charges an enemy. "Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug."

The reporter's email address (regusquiza@nationalenquirer.com) is included with the story, so maybe more revelations about Palin will emerge.

I've heard from quite a few people after first writing about the alleged affair. Many of the comments and emails reflect the sort of thoughtful analysis that we've come to expect from right-wingers. For example:

You're a brain dead socialist and should be ashamed of yourself. Go back to pot farming and leave them alone.

don't know how but I stumbled on to your web-site.
You are one of the dumbest SOB's I have ever witnessed!

You are some sick people and very ignorant if you think this affair is veritas.

Well, l'm interested in the truth. If Sarah Palin had an affair, that's worth knowing. If she didn't, that also should come out.

Unlike a lot of Republicans, judging from the speeches I heard at their recent convention, I'm ready and willing to charge course with the wind of reality. The National Enquirer deserves respect, because they were right about the John Edwards affair and got the goods on O.J. Simpson before other media did.

Plus, it's obvious that Sarah Palin can't be trusted. Like most politicians, she's a pro at fudging the truth. Or even outright lying.

Take a look below at a You Tube video – an ABC investigative report on Troopergate. Listen to the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner who was fired by Sarah Palin. He says, "I'd like to see the truth, that's all."

When you hear Palin's deceptive comments at the end of the video, it's obvious that no matter how many denials are issued about her alleged affair, you can't trust what Palin says.

Update on Sarah Palin’s alleged affair

The Palin soap opera continues to unfold. Did she or didn't she have an affair? New facts (and guesses) came out today.

The National Enquirer hasn't gone beyond its teasing that Palin had some sort of affair. And almost certainly it won't, until the print edition is on newsstands (they're in the fine capitalist business of making money, after all).

So the identity of Palin's purported lover is still a mystery. However, an Alaskan blogger says that Sarah Palin had a relationship with her husband's business partner.

My sources in Alaska say the incident occurred in mid 1990s, right around the time she became mayor of Wasilla. Todd Palin's partner in a Polaris snowmachine dealership in Wasilla, Brad Hanson Hampton, and Sarah were reportedly flirtatious and but never consummated the relationship.

When I read that, I thought the story might amount to nothing. After all, I could easily imagine the National Enquirer teasing readers with a "Sarah Palin affair!" headline – which turns out to be some heavy flirting.

No big deal. But the next paragraph casts doubt on how innocent the relationship was.

When Todd found out, he reportedly dissolved the partnership and sold the dealership. Hampton [or Hanson] is now a member of the Palmer City Council. He was married at the time of the reported flirtation.

Selling a business is a pretty big deal. Seems like you'd need a pretty good reason to do that.

Now the tale gets even more interesting. Andrew Sullivan reports that Todd Palin's former business partner has filed an emergency motion to seal his divorce papers. It was denied by the court.

This guy's name is Scott Richter, though, not Brad Hanson (or Hampton). A Google search reveals that Todd Palin and Scott Richter did own property together. So there's some sort of connection between them.

A comment to another blog post has a theory about why there's a rush to seal the divorce papers.

Rumor from Alaska is that this refers to an affair the wife, Debbie, [Scott Richter's ex-wife] had with one of Palin's advisers. Todd Palin got him fired. Since the order was denied, this will be public soon.

Bottom line: there's more evidence that something is fishy, affair-wise, in the Palin family. It might take until next week to find out what role, if any, Sarah plays in all this.

There's now speculation – shakily founded (but that's what speculation is all about) – that Scott Richter could be Trig Palin's real father. Well, at least the marvelously unqualified Sarah Palin has stirred up McCain's presidential campaign.

I'm hoping she'll stir it right down the electability drain. After all, even if she didn't have an affair, there's other juicy shocking revelations about her that voters need to consider.

Watch for the new issue of the National Enquirer at your supermarket checkout lane. I'll probably be doing some daily shopping.

National Enquirer alleges Sarah Palin affair

Ooh, ooh! Please let it be true!

National Enquirer cover:

"Sarah Palin's DARK SECRETS!
Affair that nearly ruined her career"

Well, it won't be nearly, if this turns out to be true. The Enquirer had the goods on John Edwards way before anyone else did.

Naturally the McCain campaign is calling the story a "vicious lie." That's always the first response, so I don't give the denial much credence.

I like the National Enquirer's response:

"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards' exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."

We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out. The Enquirer pays its sources, and Palin has made quite a few enemies in Alaska.

I suspect we haven't seen the end of the shocking revelations about Sarah Palin. Stay tuned.

Palin baby conspiracy theories

Ah, just the thing to liven up a Labor Day. The blogosphere is buzzing with the notion that Sarah Palin's recently born child isn't really hers.

This possibility took a hit when it was announced that her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant – since some speculated that the baby was Bristol's.

Portland blogger Jack Bogdanski is on the story. His first post today was "Another web page connected to the Sarah Palin scandal disappears."

This is curious. If there's nothing to the not-Sarah's-baby speculation, why would photos of her pregnancy and the baby's birth be disappearing?

Bogdanski's follow up post was "More fun and games with Miss Congeniality."

When we left the saga of Sarah Palin and her supposed fifth child, Trig, early this morning, only one of two things could have been true: Either Palin was not the boy's mother and was faking the pregnancy, or she recklessly endangered the life of the child by waiting almost a full day between her water breaking and arriving at a hospital -- choosing to fly eight hours or more from Dallas to Anchorage after her water broke.

Either way, this story doesn't put Palin in a flattering light. If she faked the pregnancy, obviously her candidacy is over, because she's a liar. If she recklessly endangered her child, this casts even more doubt on her judgment and capacity to be a heartbeat away from serving as President of the United States.

The comments to Jack's second post are well worth reading. One at the beginning raises a question that I also thought of.

I don't consider the latest wrinkle a slamdunk refutation of the claim that Sarah Palin is Trig's mother.

A copy of her pregnancy test results or receipts for prenatal care would be more persuasive.

There are still too many holes and loose ends.

Other commenters debate the propriety of a pregnant woman who is leaking amniotic fluid and having contractions then giving a speech in Texas and flying on a plane back to Alaska – without going to a hospital to have her condition checked.

An Anchorage Daily News story said:

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

Here's another blogger's take on the subject. There may be nothing to this story but Palin's poor judgment (the baby was known to have Down's Syndrome, so you'd think this would have made her more careful about her pregnancy).

However, I agree with the commenter who said "too many holes and loose ends." I suspect this story will hang around for a while.

And if it doesn't, bloggers can turn to Palin's hiring an attorney for her Troopergate investigation. Not exactly a great beginning to a vice-presidential candidacy.